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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuine behavioral trait: private listings expose only the app kind. However, it says nothing about result format, pagination, ordering, empty-result behavior, or whether it needs authentication, leaving meaningful gaps for a search tool.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The second sentence is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, but it is not wasted text.

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?

For a two-optional-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it omits pagination, result shape, and ordering. The private-listing note is a useful addition but does not fully cover what an agent needs to interpret 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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the enum for 'kind' is fully enumerated there. The phrase 'by words and kind' merely restates the parameters without adding syntax, matching rules, or default behavior, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('apps for sale on ShipDesk.dev') plus the two search dimensions ('words and kind'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_launches or my_listings, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing advice relative to siblings such as search_launches or my_listings. Usage is only implied by the word 'Search', and the second sentence addresses result visibility rather than invocation conditions.

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