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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it clarifies that the search is free, does not certify safety, and that paid Ontario publication adds no ranking score. It also mentions 'bounded source-reported recent activity,' which helps set expectations. No contradiction with readOnlyHint or idempotentHint.

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 dense but appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every sentence carries distinct information: what it searches, how ranking works, what it does not do, and a special conditional path. No filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers its scope, limitations, special-case routing, and relationship to safety checks. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 80%, and the description adds context for ranking and filtering, including budget filtering. It also reinforces the query parameter's safety constraint ('never include credentials'). However, it does not explain each parameter exhaustively, though the schema covers most.

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 clearly states this is a buyer-side search tool across specific markets, ranking candidates by task relevance and activity. It uses a specific verb ('search'), names the resources (Ontario profiles, Agentic Market, Coinbase CDP Bazaar), and distinguishes its scope from provider-side publication workflows seen in sibling tools.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'This is discovery, not a safety certification; run readiness and can-pay before spending.' It also names alternatives and gives a conditional directive for provider-side intent, telling the agent to skip buyer search and use the listing validator and publication workflow.

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