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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does real work: it discloses that the call is free, needs no credential and no payment, that contact is optional and only used to reply, and that a refusal will be stated plainly rather than silently dropped. Rate limits and turnaround/response format are not covered, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

'ASK US FOR WHAT IS NOT HERE,' 'What would you like to buy?' and 'Tell us even if it is not in this inventory' all say the same thing in consecutive sentences, and the closing 'It is the one call we most want you to make' is pure promotion. The actionable instruction lands early, but several sentences do not earn their place.

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 single-purpose request tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, trigger condition, cost/auth profile, and the possibility of a negative answer — enough for an agent to call it correctly. What the agent receives back and how long it waits are left unstated.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates that `want` is free text and that `contact` is only used to reply — both already in the schema — and never mentions `would_pay` at all, adding essentially no semantic value beyond the structured fields.

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 names a specific action (request a capability that isn't in the inventory) and clarifies what counts as a 'capability' — a machine-readable convention or a property of one across a host population that can be added to the probe set. That distinguishes it from the measurement siblings (absence_rate, adoption_curve, host_report), though it never names them explicitly.

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?

'Tell us even if it is not in this inventory' clearly states the triggering condition — the thing you need is absent here. It never says when NOT to use it or points to a sibling for in-inventory needs, but the context is unambiguous.

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