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

Annotations already indicate openWorldHint=true and readOnly=false; the description adds valuable behavioral detail by disclosing that sellers can anonymously see the request and offer, and that the requester is notified when matches appear. It goes beyond the structured flags, though it does not mention how to cancel or update the standing search.

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, with the core action in the first sentence, behavioral detail in the second, and a use case in the third. It is front-loaded, free of filler, and every sentence contributes.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not specify the return value or error cases, but it supplies enough context for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it: the trigger condition, what is saved, privacy behavior, and expected outcome. Minor gaps around optional parameters and duplicate handling are acceptable given its clarity.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters described), so the schema already explains cadence, contact, and request. The description reinforces the privacy of the contact email and hints at the standing-search purpose, but it does not clarify the optional name field or add meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 explicitly says 'Save a standing search on the customer's behalf,' naming the action and resource. It also distinguishes itself from search_market by stating it converts a dead-end search into a market request, making its purpose clear relative to siblings.

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?

Provides an explicit trigger condition: 'Use this when search_market found nothing good.' It clarifies the follow-up behavior (notifications and anonymous seller offers) but does not contrast with other sibling tools like ask_market or open_demand, so exclusions are not complete.

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