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

Annotations already carry the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the description only needed to add operational context. It adds none — no mention of pagination via cursor, result ordering, default limits, or whether an empty query is allowed across this very large open-world index.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded clause with no filler, which is good. But it terminates mid-list at "and...", so the enumeration is visibly incomplete — compute and digital kinds are dropped — which undermines the one piece of information the sentence exists to convey.

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 13-parameter, 0%-documented, no-output-schema search tool, the description should explain pagination, geo-radius semantics, and filter interactions. Instead it is a truncated catalogue of item types, leaving an agent unable to call it correctly beyond passing `q` and a guessed `kind`.

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 0% across 13 parameters, including a nested `near` object, price bounds, and three enums, so the description carries the full burden. All it provides is a partial, truncated gloss of some `kind` values ("secondhand goods, new stock, B2B lots, factory capacity, supplier parts and..."), leaving `mode`, `near`, `status`, `seller_type`, `cursor`, and the price/geo filters completely unexplained.

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+resource ("Search the ce-net shop") and enumerates the inventory categories it covers, which maps loosely to the `kind` enum. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the many search siblings (market_search, apps_search, factories_search, directory_search, source_search), so an agent cannot tell which search surface to pick.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing despite ~10 sibling search tools. The category list implies the tool covers shop inventory, but nothing states how it differs from market_search or factories_search, which also appear relevant.

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