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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds valuable behavior beyond those: free/no wallet, the exact fields searched, plain-language query semantics, ordering by match rather than sales/popularity, and the fact that results expose owner and slug. This gives an agent a trustworthy mental model of side effects and result characteristics.

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 every sentence carries operational weight: no-wallet note, search scope, query format, ordering behavior, result fields, and next steps. It is well structured, has concrete examples, and does not waste words.

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 output schema exists, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke correctly: what is searched, how to phrase queries, listing-all behavior, ordering rule, and the follow-on tools. The three parameters are fully described in the schemaable, and the workflow routing to get_listing and how_to_buy rounds out the context.

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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3, and the description adds meaningful query semantics not in the schema: 'Describe the job in plain words,' concrete examples, and empty-query behavior. The limit and max_price_micro parameters are already well documented in the schema, so the description's extra query guidance pushes this above baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it 'Searches every live listing' across private repos, agent skills, prompt packs, and toolkits. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_listing and how_to_buy by focusing on discovery and search rather than details or purchase.

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 gives strong usage context: 'Free, no wallet needed,' plain-word query guidance with examples, and the 'leave query empty to list everything' fallback. It also outlines the workflow—use get_listing next, then how_to_buy—but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with a fully named alternative search tool.

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