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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states that only public agents are returned, lists the result fields, and specifies the required Bearer auth. It does not mention pagination or empty-result behavior, but the read-only search intent is clear.

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 with no filler: the action and core filters come first, return fields follow, and auth is stated at the end. Every sentence 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?

The description, combined with the schema, gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly: required query, optional filters, result fields, and authentication. Minor gaps like pagination and category value formats are not critical for a straightforward search tool.

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?

The schema documents query, limit, and max_price well, but category lacks a description. The description compensates by identifying category and max_price as optional filters, adding semantic meaning to the under-documented category parameter beyond the raw schema.

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 and resource: 'Search the NovaRail marketplace for agents', and clearly states the input style and returned fields. It is easy to distinguish from get_agent, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named discover_agents sibling.

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 makes the intended use clear: search the marketplace by free-text query with optional category or price filters. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer search_agents over discover_agents or get_agent, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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