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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description is consistent with that (it writes a demand record) and adds real context the annotations cannot carry: requests are clustered by need, frequent ones get built, aggregate demand is public at a given endpoint. It stops short of saying whether repeated identical submissions create duplicate demand entries, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Four tight clauses, front-loaded with cost and the core action, then the routing condition, then the behavioral caveat, then the API equivalents. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers cost, preconditions, side effects and the downstream fate of the request. For a two-parameter intake tool this is everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both properties already carry good descriptions with examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only implies the semantics of `need` via "clustered by need" and adds no detail on `context` or length limits — baseline 3 is right here.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ("report a capability the 500+ tools do not cover") and immediately scopes it to the missing-tool case, which separates it cleanly from catalog.search/find/call in the sibling list. "Records demand only: it runs nothing" removes the main ambiguity an agent would have about whether this triggers anything.

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 an explicit precondition — use it "after catalog.search or catalog.find found nothing that fits" — naming the exact sibling tools to exhaust first. It also flags cost ("[free]") and the negative case (it runs nothing), so the agent knows both when to call it and what it will not do.

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