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

The description discloses key behavior: deprecated status, legacy response shape, bounded results requiring limit, and x402/MPP pricing plus Sella quality signals. The readOnlyHint=true annotation is consistent with a read/search operation, so no contradiction. However, it doesn't detail response format specifics or pagination behavior beyond 'bounded'.

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 critical deprecation warning first, then the purpose and filter hints. Efficient and no wasted words, though the catalog listing of categories is somewhat long.

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, the description covers the search scope, filter usage, bounded results, pricing info disclosure (x402/MPP), and points to a successor tool. Given several siblings (search_catalog, browse_catalog, describe_catalog, try_dataset) the deprecation warning effectively routes the agent. A slightly richer note on the legacy response shape would improve completeness, but it's adequate.

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 100%, so the schema documents all 7 parameters effectively with descriptive text for chain, limit, query, domain_type (with examples A1-A22), product_class (B1-B6), verified_only, and max_price_usdc. The description references 'optional filters' and 'limit' but adds little beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool searches the Sella Data Market catalogue of aggregated third-party providers, with specific categories listed. It distinguishes itself from the sibling search_catalog by explicitly naming it as the preferred alternative, though the 'Deprecated' label somewhat complicates the clear purpose.

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?

Explicitly names the preferred alternative (search_catalog with kind=api), gives clear context that it's deprecated for one release, and mentions usage of optional filters plus the limit bound. It lacks when-not-to-use guidance beyond the deprecation, but the alternative is directly identified.

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