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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description carries less burden. The description adds that it filters markets by keyword, but it does not disclose result ordering, pagination behavior, match semantics, or other behavioral details beyond what annotations state.

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 clean sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, and nothing important is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 read-only, fully annotated search tool with full schema coverage, this minimal description is mostly adequate. Still, the lack of any guidance about relationship to list_markets or output shape means an agent has to infer some contextual context on its own.

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 fully documents both parameters ('query' and 'limit'). The description adds little semantic meaning beyond saying the search is by keyword, which is already implied by the required 'query' parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('search'), resource ('markets'), and a method ('by keyword'), making the core purpose clear. It differentiates from get_market and list_markets through the keyword-search focus, though it does not explicitly name or distinguish those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'by keyword' implies this tool is for finding markets matching a search query, which gives some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over list_markets or board_search, or when not to use it.

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