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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: 'a listing whose value is unknown never matches that filter' and that returned attributes are null when unknown. This goes meaningfully beyond the structured fields, though nothing is said about result ordering or paging 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?

Three tight sentences, each carrying distinct information (search scope, no-query browse mode, filter/unknown semantics, return attributes). The most important content — what it searches and how to use it without a query — comes first.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the returned listing attributes and nullability, so an agent knows what it gets back. It is close to complete; only ordering/paging expectations and the relationship to get_listing are unstated.

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, but the description adds real semantic value: query is matched across four specific fields, and unknown values never satisfy a filter — a rule the schema cannot express. Enum wording (free_trial, api_cli) is left to the schema.

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 and resource (search live Makeroo listings) and even names the fields searched: name, tagline, description, tags. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_listing or the other siblings, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation but the scope is unambiguous.

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 clear conditional guidance: 'Omit query to browse the newest' tells the agent how to use the tool as a browse rather than a search. It also explains filter behavior, but never names an alternative tool or states when *not* to use search_listings (e.g., when an id is already known, use get_listing).

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