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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only', explains that missing numbers mean 'we have not measured it' rather than an error, and clarifies that an empty match list is a valid empty list, not a failure. This goes well beyond basic behavior and preempts common misinterpretations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: scope, return contents, missing-measurement behavior, read-only safety, and empty-result semantics. The most important information is front-loaded, and the description is long enough to be useful but not bloated.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains what each result includes: what the thing is, who made it, the price, and whether it was measured. It also handles likely edge cases (missing numbers and empty lists), making the tool fully usable without additional context.

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 parameters text, free_only, and measured_only are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds useful context about missing measurement values, but it does not add new parameter-level syntax or format details beyond 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Search'), a concrete resource ('MarketAIVerse shelf'), and precisely scopes what is included: things for sale, free things, and collected free tools. This clearly differentiates it from narrower siblings like list_free_tools and find_by_need without needing to open their schemas.

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 makes the intended use clear: this is the broad shelf search, covering all categories. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the scope statement and read-only framing provide solid contextual guidance.

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