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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the description's job is supplemental. It does that well by disclosing that prices and availability are refreshed server-side and that listing links open the Zero to Hundred website, which are behaviors annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool renders and immediately followed by the required call sequence. Every sentence carries information, though the phrasing 'the search text you used as `search` so the panel shows what the cards are for' is slightly convoluted.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. It supplies the prerequisite call, the default behavior, and refresh/link behavior, leaving only edge cases like the 20-slug cap and pagination unaddressed.

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 the schema already documents both parameters, including that cards are selected by slugs and that `search` does not filter. The description adds only the intent behind `search` ('so the panel shows what the cards are for'), which is a marginal gain over structured data.

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 and resource ('Show public software cards and an interactive comparison panel') and makes the relationship to the sibling tool explicit by naming z2h_search_marketplace as the source of the slugs. An agent can distinguish this from z2h_search_marketplace (which finds listings) without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow ('First search with z2h_search_marketplace, then pass the public slugs') and defines the no-argument fallback ('Without slugs, shows the newest live software'). It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the sibling z2h_compare_marketplace_listings, whose comparison framing could otherwise be confused with the 'comparison panel' here.

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