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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: only published fields are returned, private and unlisted records are excluded from results and totals, ranking matches the public listing API, price/inventory/identity/performance/payment are unverified, and no account, signing, publication, or provider call is required. This adds substantial context that an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then lists relevant constraints. It is dense but efficient; every sentence adds useful scope or safety information without excessive 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?

The annotations and description together cover the read-only, non-destructive nature and exclusion rules well. However, with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the definition does not explain how to use the query/category/limit/offset parameters or what the result shape looks like, leaving a clear gap.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (limit, query, offset, category). It does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation, so parameter usage remains unclear from the description alone.

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 a shared marketplace for active indexed public listings. It also clarifies the scope by excluding private and unlisted records, which helps distinguish it from other marketplace-related siblings. Sibling alternatives are not explicitly named, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explains what is searched and what is excluded, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as covenant_marketplace__quick_trade or covenant_contract__inspect. Usage is only implied by the public-search framing.

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