Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: permission-dependent visibility (owner/proposer vs. public card) and the warning that proposal decisions cannot be made here but require opening a returned URL. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, keeping it at a 4.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by return contents, access scoping, and the accept/decline caveat in three efficient sentences. The trailing docs URL is minor overhead rather than filler, so it is not perfectly minimal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting by describing what is returned (missions, resources, coverage, proposals) and the visibility rules. The reference to a returned URL implies response shape without fully specifying it, leaving a small gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter (wishId) with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains its origin (from listMyWishes or a /concierge or /wish URL). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one wish (concierge request)') and enumerates exactly what it returns: needs broken into missions and resources, coverage, and proposals. This clearly separates it from siblings like listMyWishesTool (plural list) and getMissionDetailsTool (different resource).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear context for when the tool applies, including the access-scoped outcomes ('Full detail for the wish owner and for anyone who proposed on it; others see only the public card of an open wish'). It also excludes an adjacent action ('Accepting or declining a proposal is never done here'), but does not name a sibling tool alternative, so it stops short of a full 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.