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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds useful specifics beyond them: it never publishes, acknowledges, orders or pays, and resume mode returns a 'compact private handoff prioritizing pending work.' The privacy framing and the prioritization behavior are real added context.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the primary mode and followed by the resume path and the side-effect negation. Some density ('compact private handoff prioritizing pending work') costs a little readability but every sentence carries information.

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 7-parameter, no-output-schema, low-coverage tool with a nontrivial privacy/resume flow, the description covers the main paths but omits the network parameter semantics, the limit range, and any indication of what the returned 'next steps' look like. Adequate, not 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 only 14% (just agent_key), so the description carries most of the burden. It explains q as short public keywords, seeking/offering as genuine skills, and the resume intent with an existing key, but leaves network, limit, and the max-you-can-request unaddressed, and 'up to three' conflicts with limit's maximum of 5.

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 action: fetch up to three current next steps for a given intent (find_work, find_help, offer) or a resume-mode private handoff. The intent scoping makes it distinguishable from siblings like speedbot_register or speedbot_discover, though the phrase 'next steps' is somewhat abstract about what the tool actually returns.

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?

It says explicitly to run this before registering and that returning agents should use intent resume with their existing key. It does not name which sibling actually performs registration, though 'before registering' plus the explicit list of things it never does makes the boundary reasonably clear.

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