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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that only verified-control listings appear and that asking prices are only returned where set, which matters for interpreting sparse results.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the verification qualifier following. No filler; every clause conveys information.

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 simple read-only search with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, this is nearly complete: it explains the source of listings and the return of asking prices. It stops short of covering max_price behavior or result limits/pagination.

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 coverage is only 50%: keywords is documented but max_price has no schema description and is not addressed anywhere in the description. The description adds no filtering syntax or semantics, leaving the price-bound parameter 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+resource (search domains listed for sale with GoMain) and clarifies the trust scope (owners proved control). It implicitly separates itself from list_domain_for_sale (listing your own name) and make_offer (the buying action), so an agent can pick it without opening the 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?

It routes the agent to make_offer for buying/negotiating, which is useful usage context, but never states explicitly when to reach for this tool versus siblings like check_availability or compare_prices. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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