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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the returned fields, the fact that pricing/ordering must happen via the item link, and that only currently operating stalls appear. It could still say more about ranking or result ordering.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope before the caveats about price and stall status. Dense and nearly waste-free, though the return-field enumeration slightly overlaps the output schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't detail return values, yet it succinctly previews them. Combined with the price caveat and active-stall constraint, an agent has enough to call the tool correctly; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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 query, lang, limit, and building are all fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of supported languages and 'keywords only, not a whole message' largely restates the schema, so it sits at the baseline rather than adding new 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (wholesale fashion items listed by stalls in Dongdaemun), with concrete scope: market, city, and platform. An agent can distinguish this from find_stalls, get_product, and get_new_arrivals immediately.

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?

Gives clear context ('short keywords in any language') and an important exclusion: only in-business stalls are returned and prices are not available here. It does not, however, explicitly name alternatives such as get_product for full item detail or get_new_arrivals for recent listings, so routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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