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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that with useful operational context: public, no auth, cached 30 s, opaque signed cursor bound to the query, and a privacy guarantee (never exposes owner wallet, email or runner identity). It does not, however, cover rate limits or error behavior.

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 purpose and endpoint are front-loaded, but the body is a single enormous run-on paragraph mixing parameter docs, ranking rules, and response shape. Several clauses (limit default, price enum, sort enum values) restate what the schema already documents, so not every sentence earns its place and the density hurts scannability.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates thoroughly by enumerating the full item shape (id, kind, source, title, handle, href, stats, price, cta), plus `total` and `facets`, along with pagination and auth behavior. For a 10-parameter discovery endpoint this is complete enough that an agent could parse results without a schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema for `q` (ranking: title match > tag > description, proven first within ties), the opaque signed cursor bound to the query, and how the default `popular` order blends Rokha and registry signals. Some sort ordering detail duplicates the schema's own sort description, so it is not a full 5.

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 names a specific resource (the Rokha market / GET /api/market) and states precisely what it aggregates: Rokha-native rigs, skills, MCP servers, Forge agents, plus the whole synced open registry. An agent can immediately tell this is the broad marketplace browse/search endpoint rather than a narrow registry_search or rig_search. It also enumerates the facets (aisle, dept, source) that define the tool's scope.

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 explains each parameter's effect (browse by aisle/dept, sort modes, price, proven) which implies how to use it, but never states when to choose this over the many sibling discovery tools such as rig_search, registry_search, or search_skills. No explicit when-not or alternative routing is given, so the agent must infer that this is the superset browse tool.

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