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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-openWorld behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the shape of the payload (status, coverage, counts), with nothing about ordering, pagination, or result limits for a list operation.

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?

Two compact sentences that front-load what is listed and when to use it, followed by a docs link. No restatement of the title and no filler.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what an agent needs to select and call it. It stops short of describing result volume or ordering, which matters slightly for a list tool in a family of 40+ siblings.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter guidance because there is nothing to configure, and it does note the per-wish output fields.

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 ('List the caller's own wishes'), and the parenthetical '(concierge requests)' plus the field list (status, coverage, mission/resource counts) makes the scope concrete. The 'caller's own' qualifier implicitly separates it from detail-oriented siblings like getWishDetailsTool, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 a clear use case: answering 'what did I ask for' and selecting the wish a follow-up refers to, which usefully routes the agent toward this list tool rather than a detail tool. No explicit negative guidance or named alternatives, so it stops short of the top band.

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