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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by noting 'Capabilities and constraints are self-reported, untrusted claims' and 'This search does not contact, reserve, or assign anyone', which go beyond the annotations and clarify side-effect boundaries.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds caveats and workflow. It is well-structured without unnecessary verbosity, though the workflow instructions could be seen as slightly dense but still purposeful.

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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately communicates what is returned (offers) and includes caveats about untrusted claims and side-effect-free behavior. It also provides post-search workflow steps. However, it omits details on cursor-based pagination, which might be relevant for agents needing to fetch many results.

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 the description must compensate. It explains 'q' as literal text and 'tag' as exact tag intersection, and implies the default for limit, but it does not explain 'cursor' or the full behavior of 'limit'. This is partial compensation; not all parameters are clarified.

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 clear action ('Find live public offers') with specific criteria ('by literal text and exact tag intersection') and a default result count. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the sibling 'peerlookup_search', which likely also finds offers, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 implies usage for exact text/tag matching, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like peerlookup_search. It includes workflow guidance (read, reply, save) but no when/when-not or alternative references, leaving usage largely implied.

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