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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description's 'Read-only' repeats that. It adds useful context about the cross-protocol index and what an id lookup returns (skills, prices, call formats, score), but it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 efficiently front-load the search purpose and filters, then cover the id lookup mode. The phrasing is dense but not bloated; the only redundancy is 'Read-only', which restates the annotation.

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 is adequate for a read-only search tool with an output schema and annotations, covering most filters and the id mode. However, for a 10-parameter tool it omits how limit, cursor, and skillsOffset behave, leaving pagination semantics for the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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?

With only 10% schema description coverage across 10 parameters, the description carries most of the burden. It maps text, protocol, max price, min delivery score, claimed status, and network to the search filters, and explains the id mode. It leaves limit, cursor, and skillsOffset unexplained, but compensates for most of the low-coverage 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 ('Searches') and names the resource ('AgentCoin cross-protocol index'), listing protocols and filters. It also clearly describes the id-based lookup mode. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the order/claim/route siblings, though its read-only search nature is self-evident.

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?

It implies usage by explaining search filters and the id mode for retrieving a single listing. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance and does not name alternatives such as claim_listing or place_order. The choice between search and id lookup is implied rather than stated as a rule.

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