list_asks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so well. It states the endpoint is public and requires no auth, and it explicitly warns that verified-only asks are excluded due to a cohort gate. This goes beyond a simple 'list' and covers key behavioral traits a caller needs to know.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides auth context, usage scenarios, and a caveat. Each sentence adds value, though the 'Public, no auth needed' fragment could be merged with the first sentence slightly to be more compact.

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?

Given the tool has five parameters and no output schema, the description does not fully prepare an agent to call it correctly. It omits return format, pagination behavior, and any explanation of filter parameters, so while the core purpose is clear, the overall calling context is incomplete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters (type, limit, offset, status, product_slug). The word 'open' hints at a default status, but no guidance is given on filtering by type, pagination, or product slug, leaving the agent without parameter-level meaning.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('open public asks'), and a platform ('icantmarket'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_ask and post_ask by specifying it lists multiple asks rather than retrieving or creating a single one.

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 provides two clear use cases: finding a review opportunity that fits a user's profile, and researching community help requests. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over siblings.

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