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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the lookup is free (no x402 payment required) and it does not execute the discovered tools — execution belongs to proxy_tool_call. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned rows or pagination limits, which it could since there is no output schema.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero waste, front-loaded with what is searched and immediately followed by the cost and execution caveat. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 four-parameter, no-required-arg discovery tool with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete: it covers scope, cost, and where execution happens. The remaining gap is the return shape (what a 'row' contains) and the 20-row cap context, neither of which is in an output schema.

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%, with each of q, limit, cursor, and network documented in the schema itself (including that cursor is ignored). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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 and resource ('Search Coinbase CDP's Bazaar MCP catalog') plus the result class ('third-party x402-payable tools'). It names the underlying method (search_resources) but never distinguishes itself from the near-identically named sibling bazaar_discover_resources, leaving an ambiguity an agent could easily trip on.

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?

'Read-only, free' and 'Rows are run via the Bazaar MCP server's proxy_tool_call, not here' give a clear next-step route after discovery. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over bazaar_discover_resources, bazaar_probe_x402, or bazaar_pay_and_call, so the choice among the bazaar_* siblings is left to inference.

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