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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the tool 'almost always answers that the capability is unavailable,' that alternatives are suggested only when they genuinely exist, and that the underlying purpose is to measure unmet agent needs. This is significant behavioral context beyond the basic 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds value: what it does, how it behaves, and when to use it. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and usage well. It explains the likely response ('almost always answers that the capability is unavailable') and the fallback behavior. It does not fully specify the response format, but for a simple request-logging tool the description is nearly complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; however, it frames the overall intent ('Record a specific need') which aligns with the 'need' parameter. No extra semantics are provided for context, deadline, or would_pay.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Record a specific need that none of the tools available to you can cover.' It clearly distinguishes this from other tools by framing it as a fallback for missing capabilities and explicitly says it is not for general questions or things solvable by reasoning.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it when you are blocked by a missing capability' and includes exclusions: 'not for general questions, and not for anything you can work out by reasoning.' It does not name specific alternative sibling tools, but the exclusions are clear enough for an agent to avoid misuse.

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