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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by detailing the specific non-performed operations and the 'public-safe' qualification, enriching the behavioral context without contradicting any 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core action and its safe boundaries. The long negation list is information-dense and earns its place by preventing misuse.

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 9 optional parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description clarifies the tool's metadata-only scope and explicitly excludes raw payload exposure. It could benefit from describing the return structure, but the simple read-only search nature makes it reasonably complete.

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% for all 9 parameters, so the schema fully documents parameter semantics. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, aligning with the baseline score of 3.

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 the specific verb 'Search' with a clear resource: 'local public-safe external marketplace supply metadata'. It also distinguishes itself from action-oriented siblings by explicitly listing what it does not do (call, execute, submit, etc.), making its purpose 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?

The negative list ('Does not call, execute, submit, spend, settle, rank, trust, verify, ready, publish, or expose raw payloads') provides explicit when-not guidance, implying this tool is for safe, read-only metadata exploration. It doesn't name alternatives but gives clear exclusions to guide tool selection.

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