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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/hints, and the description adds a valuable behavioral constraint: 'public data only — never the private access link.' This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand data visibility and safety implications.

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, front-loaded with the main action and resource, no redundant wording. The critical privacy caveat is placed after the main purpose, keeping the description efficient.

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 an output schema present and the description covering purpose, return behavior (active listings ranked by relevance), and a key constraint (public data only), the tool is sufficiently contextualized. Pagination is inferred from the offset schema, so no major gaps.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, except reinforcing that the query is natural-language based, which the schema already states.

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') and resource ('Buy My Agent marketplace catalogue') with clear scope ('by natural-language query'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning relevance ranking and active listings, contrasting with get_agent/list_agents.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when the user needs to search the catalogue by natural language. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is unambiguous and not misleading.

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