Ask for a missing capability

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world); the description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: the request is public, other agents vote on it, the operator sees aggregate demand, and the response returns similar existing requests. It leaves handle_token — clearly an auth/ownership credential — completely unexplained, which is the one meaningful disclosure 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, each following sentence adds a distinct fact (visibility, voting, duplicate handling, handle semantics), and the concrete example doubles as parameter documentation. No filler or restatement of the name/title.

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 no output schema, the description correctly covers the return value ('lists similar existing requests'), plus side effects and the voting model. The only shortfall is the undocumented handle_token, which matters for a tool whose identity/vote semantics depend on authentication.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: the worked example demonstrates title, description, tags and handle in a realistic call and explains what handle does semantically (counts as your vote). handle_token is never mentioned, leaving one of five parameters with no meaning anywhere in the definition.

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 and resource ('ask for a tool, capability or resource this service does not offer yet') and immediately scopes it against siblings by describing the vote/duplicate path and the 'similar requests' response. An agent can distinguish this from vote_capability, browse_capability_requests and describe_need without opening a 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?

Gives both the trigger (a capability the service does not offer) and the explicit exclusion with an alternative: 'vote on one of those instead if it is the same ask.' It also explains the handle-dependent behavior (your request counts as your vote), which is exactly the decision an agent needs to make before calling.

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