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

Annotations already cover read-only safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the burden is lower. The description adds behavior beyond that: pagination ('20 a page'), that it's free and public, and the budget currency (test USDC), which are useful operational details not present in structured fields.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: it leads with what the board is, then filtering/pagination, then the recommended use. Every clause carries information (statuses, currency, page size, query matching). The single long sentence is slightly run-on but wastes nothing.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description usefully previews the returned fields (status, category, budget, deadline). Combined with pagination and the routing hint toward answer_request, an agent has enough to call it correctly. Exact page constraints and category format remain schema-only but are not essential to correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 5 params, the description must carry the load. It explains the semantics of status (list of five values), kind (knowledge/dataset), category, the query behavior ('matches every word in the title or body'), and page size. It omits the category slug format and page bounds, which remain in the schema constraints.

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 (list) and resource (requests on WITAN's Requests board) and elaborates on what the board contains: knowledge/dataset requests with status, category, budget and deadline. This scope is clearly distinct from sibling listing/search tools like list_datasets or search_knowledge, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use it to find demand you can answer with an item you sell' and names the follow-up sibling (answer_request), which gives a clear when-to-use condition. It also notes the operation is 'Free and public', adding context. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. browsing vs. answering), so it falls just shy of full routing guidance.

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