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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does well by disclosing that the tool returns machine-readable manifests and lists specific fields (type, price, security-scan status, compatibility, install command). This gives the agent concrete expectations about the output, though it omits any mention of rate limits or auth requirements.

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 and immediately states the action, scope, and return value. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with 'Search the whole Assetzaar marketplace' before listing details.

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?

For a simple, optional-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. It could mention pagination or behavior with no query, but the given details are sufficient for basic invocation.

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%, so the schema already provides clear meanings for 'type', 'limit', and 'query'. The description reiterates the categories but adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema offers, warranting the baseline score.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and the resource ('whole Assetzaar marketplace'), naming the categories it covers. It distinguishes itself from the narrower sibling 'search_components' by emphasizing the entire marketplace, making the tool's 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 description says 'Use this to find a product to build with,' providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like search_components, but the scope (whole marketplace) implies its broad applicability, earning a solid 4.

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