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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the requests are 'from real buyers' and 'anonymised', which is useful context. However, it does not disclose output behavior, pagination, or any side effects beyond what annotations cover, so it stays at the baseline for a well-annotated tool.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core function: 'Open standing requests from real buyers, anonymised.' The second sentence adds practical use cases. It is concise and well-structured without waste.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description should explain how to use the tool effectively. It only gives a general purpose and use case, but does not clarify what the parameters are for or what the response contains. This is inadequate for a tool with this complexity, especially with low schema coverage.

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 33% (only unmetOnly has a description). The tool description does not mention 'kind', 'where', or 'unmetOnly' at all, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage. Users are left guessing what these parameters mean, especially 'kind' and 'where'.

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 clearly states the tool's function: to 'Open standing requests from real buyers, anonymised.' This is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from siblings like search_market or ask_market. The title adds further context. While it does not explicitly name alternatives, the purpose is unmistakable.

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 provides context: 'Useful for a business deciding what to stock or list, and for understanding where the network has no supply at all.' This implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., search_market). The guidance is present but not fully explicit.

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