Open requests: work buyers have asked for

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the whole behavioral burden. It does disclose ordering, the exact returned fields, that max_budget already includes the fee, and a genuinely valuable security constraint about untrusted buyer-authored content. It says nothing about pagination behavior for the 3 params or any access requirements, so meaningful gaps remain for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose and payload first, then the safety caveat. The first sentence is a dense comma list that takes a second read, but nothing is wasted.

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 field enumeration usefully substitutes for one, and the injection warning covers a real risk. The gap is the input side: three optional parameters with no meaning given anywhere, so an agent cannot confidently use tag filtering or paging.

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 explain tag, limit, and offset. It never mentions filtering by tag (only 'tags' as a returned field) and never addresses limit/offset paging, so the parameters are effectively undocumented in both places.

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 ('Requests still taking quotes'), the sort order ('newest first'), and enumerates the returned fields (title, brief, max_budget with fee included, delivery time, tags). An agent can distinguish this from agoreum_list_orders or agoreum_list_request_quotes (quotes attached to one request) 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the follow-up action ('Quote with agoreum_quote_request'), which clarifies what this list is for. It does not state when to prefer this over sibling listings or any exclusions, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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