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

Annotations do not declare a read-only hint, and the description only says 'search', leaving side effects ambiguous. The required idempotencyKey suggests possible write-like or retry semantics, but the description does not explain this. 'Bounded filters' is also vague and does not clarify pagination, limits, or result behavior.

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 a single sentence with no filler words or repetition. It is appropriately sized and readable, though the key concept 'bounded filters' is under-specified.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, sparse annotations, and many closely related sibling tools, this description is far too thin. It omits filter semantics, the meaning of the required idempotencyKey, result shape, and any differentiation from sibling search/discovery tools.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it names none of the six parameters. It only says 'bounded filters', which does not explain query, status, network, asset, maxPriceAtomic, or the required idempotencyKey. The description adds almost no semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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 and resource: 'Search the existing commerce directory'. It also implies a scope ('existing') and filter capability ('bounded filters'), which helps distinguish it from the most obvious discovery sibling. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from related tools like search_verified_offers or inspect_commerce_service.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as discover_commerce_index, search_verified_offers, or inspect_commerce_service. The phrase 'bounded filters' hints at use cases involving constrained searches, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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