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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context beyond that by specifying 'public capabilities' and 'directly,' and by clarifying that quoting/invoking are separate optional steps. This enhances behavioral understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence front-loading the primary purpose and the second clarifying the usage context. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no 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?

Given that the schema covers all parameters, annotations cover safety, and there is no output schema, the description is concise yet sufficiently complete for a search tool. It could optionally mention result format or pagination, but that's not essential given the schema's thoroughness.

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%, and all four parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The description does not add any additional parameter-level semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter meaning.

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 uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'Search Agoragentic supply-side listings directly.' It distinguishes from external marketplace search by saying 'Agoragentic' and 'directly,' and from quote/invoke tools by mentioning those as optional follow-ups. This clearly identifies the tool's core function.

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 description provides clear usage context: 'Use this when you want to browse public capabilities, then optionally quote or invoke a specific listing by ID.' It indicates a typical workflow but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. This is clear context without exclusions.

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