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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one piece of real context beyond them — that only 'published' entities are returned — but says nothing about result shape or pagination behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the searchable dimensions come after the resource, which is the right order for scanning.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not mention that results are paginated or what a result contains; the only hint at return shape is the cursor parameter referencing page.nextCursor. Combined with no sibling disambiguation, the definition is callable but leaves real gaps for an agent choosing between this and the list_* tools.

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 each of the eight parameters is already fully documented in the schema, including slug formats, the country 400 case, and cursor semantics. The description's 'by text, place and category' only loosely maps to q/city/region/country/category and adds no syntax beyond the 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?

States a specific verb (search) plus resource (published auction houses and platforms) and names the three search axes (text, place, category). The verb distinguishes it from get_listing and the list_* siblings, though the description never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'search' and the qualifier 'published'; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no routing against siblings like list_places, list_categories, or get_listing, which overlap on the place/category facets.

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