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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds non-structured value: results are not ranked by an opaque score, the search carries no commercial obligation, and the data/risk profile is R0/PUBLIC, giving the agent a fuller behavioral model than annotations alone.

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, front-loaded with the core action and parameters, followed by safety and commercial context. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler or redundancy.

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-parameter, read-only search tool this is nearly complete: purpose, parameter semantics, risk, and commercial implications are covered. The lack of an output schema is not fatal because the description says what is being searched and does not promise hidden ranking, but the exact return shape is left implicit.

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 carry parameter meaning. It maps `query` to 'declared text' and `maxCandidatePrice` to an optional 'price ceiling', adding roles beyond the bare property names. It does not explain amount formatting or currency, but those are already constrained by the schema patterns.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a well-defined resource ('public service contracts'), and the two search axes ('declared text' and 'optional price ceiling'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like search_directory or get_directory_entry, which target directory entries rather than service contracts.

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 domain is clearly bounded to public service contracts in the Axiom Bazaar, and the phrase 'without an opaque ranking score' indicates when this tool is preferable for transparent matching. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, but the context is strong enough for correct tool selection.

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