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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's main added value is the relevance-ranked ordering and the fact that returned IDs feed get_listing. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or empty-result behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 sentences, zero filler: the search scope comes first, then the return ordering and the follow-up tool. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 no output schema, the description does the right thing by characterizing the return (relevance-ordered listings with IDs). It could be slightly more explicit about the result shape, but for a three-parameter read-only search tool this is sufficient to call correctly.

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%, and the schema already documents type, limit, and the empty-query behavior. The description restates keyword and single-type filtering but adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 (AI building blocks/ listings on Stackmark), plus the keyword scope and optional type restriction. An agent can tell this apart from get_listing, which is explicitly named as the follow-up for detail.

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 establishes when this tool fits (keyword discovery, optionally narrowed by one type) and how it hands off to get_listing for per-item detail. It does not contrast with similar_listings or list_categories, so an agent must infer when browsing categories or finding related items is preferable.

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