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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares "Read-only" and describes the return payload (price, licence, seller, and the address of each listing page), which substitutes for the missing output schema. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and pagination behaviour beyond what the schema already implies.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, followed by return shape, safety, and sibling routing. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 an 11-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it covers scope, return contents, read-only safety, and the alternative buying path. Only minor gaps remain, such as pagination semantics and whether results reflect live inventory, but the schema covers the parameter defaults.

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 82%, so the schema already documents q, page, sort, limit, seller, licence, category, price bounds and rating. The description only adds value indirectly by naming asset types that correspond to the category enum; it adds no syntax or format guidance for the 11 parameters. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (live listings on the Harashsuq marketplace) and enumerates the asset types covered, which maps directly onto the category enum. It also distinguishes itself from the purchase-path siblings by name, so an agent can tell what this tool is without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes buying intent elsewhere: "An AI agent that wants to buy uses search_products and get_product instead." That is a clear when-not signal against named alternatives. It does not clarify the boundary versus get_asset or list_categories, so the routing is partial rather than exhaustive.

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