wishlist

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the call is free (stated twice), and nothing else — not what happens to the submitted wish, whether it is stored publicly, whether auth is needed, or what the response looks like. For a write/submission tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.

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?

Very short, but the single sentence is marketing filler rather than substance, and it ends with a duplicated '(free) (free)' artifact. Brevity here is under-specification, not effective conciseness.

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?

A 4-parameter submission tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to cover prerequisites, storage/visibility semantics, and outcome. Instead it offers only a slogan, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke it confidently.

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%, with 'want', 'contact', and 'maxBudgetUsd' already documented in the schema and only 'category' undocumented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 is a marketing tagline ('we build what agents ask for') rather than a functional statement — it never says it submits/records a feature request. It loosely implies 'tell us what you'd pay for', but a reader must infer the verb from the name 'wishlist'. It also makes no attempt to distinguish itself from the sibling wishlist_get.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling wishlist_get, and no indication of prerequisites or rate limits. The only implied usage is the weak inference 'use this when you want something that doesn't exist yet', which the agent must construct itself.

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