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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It tells the agent the kind of data returned (what agents can't find) but omits operational details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, time ranges, or whether the result is sorted or paginated. This is insufficient for a tool with no structured metadata.

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 description is only two short sentences, with no redundant information. Every word adds value: the first sentence defines the core function, and the second suggests a primary use case. This is exemplary conciseness.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide a fuller picture of what the agent will receive and any limitations. It only hints at the content (unmet searches) but does not explain the response format, whether 'limit' affects results, or any other constraints. The tool is simple, but the description still underspecifies it.

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?

The input schema has one parameter ('limit') with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention 'limit' at all, leaving the agent without guidance on what it controls, its default value, or its acceptable range. The description completely fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'See what agents are searching for but can't find' identifies a specific resource (unmet search queries) and purpose (discovering gaps). It distinguishes from siblings like get_trending or search_listings by focusing on failed searches, but the verb 'see' is less explicit than 'list' or 'get' and does not mention output type.

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?

The phrase 'Great for discovering unmet market needs' provides a clear use case, telling the agent when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it does not reach the top score.

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