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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false. The description adds substantial behavior: auto-locking when a match appears, a 30-day expiry, and the need to poll list_deals. It omits auth (api_key) and cost/confirmation behavior, but the beyond-annotation disclosure is strong.

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?

Four short sentences, no filler, with the core 'save conditions' purpose front-loaded ahead of the auto-match and expiry behaviors.

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 mutation tool (readOnlyHint=false) with no output schema and 5 params, the description covers purpose, lifecycle (expiry), and follow-up action adequately. It leaves the location parameter and response shape unaddressed, but is largely complete.

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 60% (mid), and the description only restates the query/max_price semantics already in the schema ('關鍵字且價格在上限內'). The undocumented location parameter and the api_key/contact nuances are not compensated for in the description.

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+resource in context: saving buy conditions (掛委託/create_request) that auto-match existing or future listings on keyword and price cap. This clearly differentiates it from search_listings (one-off search) and buy_listing (immediate purchase).

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?

Explains the trigger scenario (want to save conditions for auto-matching) and explicitly routes the agent to list_deals for monitoring. It does not name alternatives like search_listings or buy_listing or state when not to use it, so it stops short 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.