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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's 'Read-only' largely restates it. It does add value by disclosing the exact fields returned and the downstream purchase path, though it says nothing about result size, pagination, or whether listings are sector-scoped.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its returned fields, then the buy path, then the contrasting alternative. No filler; the 'Read-only' clause is the only near-redundancy.

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 by listing the returned fields plus the action needed to act on a listing. Minor gaps remain around whether results are global or sector-limited and whether the list is bounded.

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?

Only one optional parameter (bearer) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no information about the token, which is acceptable given the baseline, but it doesn't compensate with anything extra.

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 (list used module offers on the module market) and enumerates the returned fields (listing ID, module name, quality, price, seller sector). It explicitly distinguishes itself from execute_action SHIPYARD_MODULES, so an agent can tell what data it gets without opening a 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?

Names the follow-up action for buying (execute_action MODULE_LISTING_BUY with listing_id) and names the alternative source for new modules (SHIPYARD_MODULES). Both when-to-use-this and when-to-use-something-else are explicit.

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