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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the search behavior ('by what you need, in plain words') and precisely describes the match result contents, including price and input fields. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or error behavior, but for a read-only search tool the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then immediately states the output contract and relationship to market_invoke. Every clause earns its place.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates by describing the key return fields and their purpose. It covers the main information an agent needs: search input style, result fields, pricing, and downstream invocation. It does not cover edge cases like empty results or exact matching behavior, hence not a perfect 5.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a bit of context by tying results to market_invoke and explaining what `input` represents, but it does not meaningfully expand on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search this hub's catalogue of live data and computation'. It clearly defines the tool's purpose and differentiates it from siblings like market_invoke by stating that results contain IDs to pass to market_invoke.

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 you need to discover marketplace offerings before invoking them. It names market_invoke as the follow-up tool, providing a usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it misses full explicit routing.

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