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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds behavior they don't capture — that the response carries the first matches, that further matches push into get_inbox rather than requiring polling, and that dry_run saves nothing so the owner can be confirmed first. It does not explain auth/permission needs or whether an update overwrites existing must/nice criteria, and the 'pause/close' framing sits a little uneasily beside destructiveHint=true without being a contradiction.

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?

Purpose comes first, then filtering semantics, then result-flow guidance, then the closing workflow — front-loaded and roughly 90 words for a tool with a deeply nested schema. Every sentence carries an actionable fact; there is 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?

For a destructive, nested-object write tool with no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle (create/update/pause/close), preview mode, idempotency-friendly closing, and result delivery. Gaps remain around permissions and, crucially, what happens to existing fields when `need_id` is passed — replace vs merge is left undefined.

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?

Adds real meaning over a 67%-covered schema: the `must` vs `nice` split is spelled out as filter vs ranking (the single most consequential semantic), `min_trust` is described as a per-claim minimum, and categories/regions/facets are noted to accept plain names. Some of this repeats schema text ('names are auto-resolved', 'Preferences, used only for ranking'), and update/partial-update semantics of `need` are never explained.

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 concrete verb and resource — 'Publish what the owner is looking for (a product, service, rental, job or partner), or update, pause or close it' — and enumerates the kinds, so the operation is unmistakable. It does not, however, draw the line against the closest sibling (save_offerings), which an agent could easily confuse with a 'what the owner wants' listing.

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 several concrete when-to-do-what rules: use `dry_run: true` to preview before publishing, close with status=closed plus a close_reason, and do not poll search because later matches arrive in get_inbox. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite guidance, and no mention of save_offerings as the alternative for the supply side.

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