create_need

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses persistence ('Persists to the file-backed registry'), the concrete side effect ('writes needs.json'), a behavioral boundary ('Does not move funds'), and silent fallback behavior on invalid type values. It stops short of 5 because it doesn't address idempotency, duplicate handling, or failure modes, but the core behavioral profile is transparent.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, workflow sequencing, parameter validation nuance, and side-effect disclosure. Core purpose is front-loaded, no filler, and the length is proportionate to an 11-parameter creation tool with zero annotations.

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 creation tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation) and no annotations, the description covers the essential ground: what it creates, where it persists, what it does not do, and which sibling to call next. It could optionally mention the broader lifecycle (claim_need, complete_need) or failure conditions, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 and the schema already documents all 11 parameters. The description adds one genuinely new semantic detail — that an invalid type falls back to 'other' rather than erroring — but the acceptance_criteria comma-separated note largely duplicates the schema. Net added value is marginal, so 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Create a new open Need') and states the purpose ('so an agent can request funding or work'). It clearly distinguishes create_need from its lifecycle siblings by explicitly noting it 'Does not move funds' and naming fund_need as the follow-up, so an agent can tell creation apart from funding, settlement, claiming, and completion without opening any schema.

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 gives an explicit workflow sequence: 'call fund_need afterwards for the x402 payment requirement, then record_payment after settlement.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and what to call next, and implies when not to use it (when funds need to move). This is exemplary routing guidance.

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