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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful scope constraint — only published listings are returned — but says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or empty-result behavior, which matters for a search tool with limit/offset.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; scope comes first and the dependency on list_filters is stated immediately after.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description should carry more weight. It handles the filter-value question well via list_filters but leaves the agent guessing about result shape, pagination, and what 'published' excludes.

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 0%, so eight parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by declaring all filters optional and pointing to list_filters for valid values, which covers the five categorical filters, but limit, offset, and query semantics and the limit maximum of 20 are left entirely to the schema.

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 (published software listings), plus the transaction types involved (license or white-label). It is clearly distinct from search_buyer_requests, though it never names 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?

'All filters optional' tells the agent it can call this with no arguments, and 'use values from list_filters' routes it to the correct sibling to obtain valid filter values. What's missing is when to prefer this over search_buyer_requests or get_listing.

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