Close a wanted request

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds two things they don't: the concrete consequence ('The public link stops working') and an auth prerequisite ('Requires GLONGUS_API_KEY'). It stops short of saying whether the closure is reversible or what happens to linked offers, which a destructive tool would ideally disclose.

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?

Three short sentences ordered purpose → consequence → prerequisite. Nothing is padded and the key side effect is front-loaded rather than buried.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effect, and auth. The remaining gap is post-conditions (reversibility, effect on pending offers or listings), which an agent would want before committing.

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 carry parameter meaning; it only implies that the wanted_id must be one of your own open requests, and never mentions format or lookup source. The schema's pattern '^\wnt\_' hints at the ID shape but is 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 (close) and resource (one of your open wanted requests), scoped to the caller's own requests. Against siblings like post_wanted_request and list_wanted_requests, the operation is unmistakable 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?

Gives the triggering conditions explicitly: 'found it elsewhere, or no longer needed'. It does not name exclusions or alternatives (e.g., what to do instead if the request was fulfilled through the platform), so it falls short of a 5.

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