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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: an exact tool name returns arguments/ack/run metadata, and listed tools should be invoked directly rather than through this tool. It does not fully describe the search result shape, but there is no contradiction.

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?

It is short and front-loaded: discovery scope first, then parameter modes, then the direct-call alternative. The category list and awkward "ack and run tool" phrasing make it denser and less clear than ideal, but every sentence contributes.

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 four-parameter read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to understand when to use it and what an exact-name lookup provides. The return shape for word/group searches remains slightly underspecified, but the core invocation guidance is present.

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 100%, so parameter meanings are already well documented. The description reinforces the words/group/tool modes, but adds little beyond the schema and does not explain passport_token beyond what the schema already says.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource ("Find AgentMart tools") and scopes it to tools not already in the agent's list; the category examples and direct-call sentence distinguish it from invoking listed tools. However, the phrase "ack and run tool" makes the exact operation less crisp.

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 says to use this when a tool is not in the agent's list and to call listed tools such as buy directly. It also explains the three lookup modes (words, group, exact tool name), giving a clear condition for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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