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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: result cap of 18, newest-first ordering, match semantics (every word must match, prefix matching for words of three or more letters, no operators), pagination via 'next', and that the tool is free. It also warns that listing text is third-party content to be treated as data, not instructions.

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?

Front-loads purpose and ordering, then pagination, then return shape and safety note. Every sentence carries actionable information with no filler.

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 explaining the return shape (summary and links per item, 'next' token for paging) and the cap of 18. Together with the safety note, it gives an agent everything needed to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds match semantics for 'query' (all words must match, prefix matching, no operators) that the schema does not convey. The 'after' and 'category' semantics largely restate the schema, which keeps it from a 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full-text search over live listings') plus scope details (newest first, 18 per call, optional category). It also distinguishes itself from get_post by saying get_post fetches the whole listing while this returns summaries and links.

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?

Routes the agent clearly: use the returned 'next' as 'after' for older results, and use get_post when the full listing is needed. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance, such as browsing by category via list_categories instead of searching.

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