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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it discloses a non-obvious behavior: ranking differs by query mode (relevance vs. 30-day call volume). It does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or result shape, but search is an inherently read-only operation and the ranking detail is the most relevant behavioral trait here.

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 tool's purpose and filters, followed by the ranking rule. No filler or repetition of schema defaults beyond what is useful.

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 7-parameter search tool with no output schema and several closely related sibling tools, the description omits result semantics, limit behavior, and sibling differentiation, and leaves most filter parameters unexplained. The ranking note adds value but the overall picture is incomplete.

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 low (29%) and the description only repeats filter names without defining asset, scheme, or payTo semantics; it also omits the limit parameter. It adds the keyword/filter grouping and maxUsdPrice intent, but does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 action ('Search the marketplace') on a clear resource and enumerates the available filters. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_resources or get_resource, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies when to use it: keyword and/or filter search on the marketplace, and it contrasts text-query versus filter-only query behavior. It provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer list_resources, get_resource, or discover_agents instead, so usage is only implied.

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