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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool searches two sources and returns results from both by default. It does not disclose return format, pagination, rate limits, or whether search is case-sensitive, but for a straightforward search tool this is reasonable. No contradictions with annotations since none exist.

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?

The description is only two short sentences, free of filler or repetition. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the critical detail about default dual-source behavior. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and default behavior. It does not explain return values (no output schema exists, so the description could be more helpful there), but for a search tool with enum-based filtering, this is largely complete. The sibling context adds marginal completeness.

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?

Despite having 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning beyond the input schema by stating the tool searches for 'qualifying AI capabilities' and notes the default behavior of returning results from both sources. This implies meaning for the 'text' and 'source' parameters. However, it does not explicitly describe the 'perSource' parameter meaning beyond what is already in the schema (integer, max 25, min 1).

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 'Search' and clearly identifies the resource as 'qualifying AI capabilities across AWS Marketplace and the Official MCP Registry'. It explicitly states the default behavior of returning results from both sources, which distinguishes it from siblings like 'market_status' that presumably checks service status rather than performs searches.

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 implicitly states that the tool searches both sources by default, and the 'source' parameter allows narrowing to either 'aws' or 'mcp'. However, it provides no guidance on when to use 'market_status' instead, nor does it explicitly exclude scenarios where this tool is inappropriate.

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