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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine scope constraints beyond that — results are limited to "live", "paid" endpoints and only those settled by OMNIGATE or 402Proof — but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what a result entry contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope constraint (live, paid, provider-settled) comes before the filter list, which is the right order.

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?

All parameters are optional and fully described by the schema, so the description only needs to cover scope and outcome. Scope is handled, but with no output schema the agent is left without any indication of what a returned listing looks like or how many results to expect beyond the schema default.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the limit default and the network value examples. The description's mention of text, network and max-price filtering only mirrors the schema and omits the limit parameter entirely, adding no new meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ("Search") against a specific resource ("live paid x402 endpoints") and narrows scope to two settlement providers. It is clear enough to distinguish from a singular fetch like get_listing, though it never names a sibling or states the boundary explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by "filtered by text, network and max price" — an agent can infer this is the discovery/browse tool for paid endpoints. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to an alternative such as get_listing for a known endpoint.

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