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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does add meaningful context: resources are included only after a real settlement and a probe, and they are not merely owner claims. This clarifies data provenance and curation behavior beyond what the schema or name conveys.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The description front-loads the operation and scope, then adds the key data-quality caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates the fields an agent should expect: URL, terms, method, and input/output shapes where published. It also explains the inclusion criteria. Minor gaps such as pagination or default limit remain, but they are not critical for a simple search tool.

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 67%, with query and network already explained in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, and the limit parameter has no description beyond its name and bounds, but the schema is sufficient for basic use.

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 and resource ('Search the catalogue of resources that have been paid for through this facilitator') and enumerates the kind of data returned (URL, terms, method, input/output shapes). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, but the resource and scope are clear.

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 context for use is implied: an agent should call this when looking for vetted, paid-for resources in the facilitator's catalogue. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mention of alternatives among the sibling tools.

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