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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description still adds real value: no auth required, no cost, and the pagination contract (page plus an opaque cursor for the next page). What's missing is whether results are ranked or what the page size defaults to, but the limit caveat ('server-bounded') is disclosed in the schema.

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 cost/auth qualifier that most affects an agent's decision, followed by the return contract. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

For a zero-required-param read-only search with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies the remaining essentials: access model, data source, and pagination behavior. An agent can call this correctly without consulting anything else.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description's only parameter-adjacent content is restating that the cursor is opaque and yields the next page, which adds no syntax or default detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('search over agent-exec's directory of paid agent-facing services') and even pins the backing HTTP endpoint, so an agent knows exactly what corpus is queried. It is clearly distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like listing_promote or placement_order.

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?

Establishes the crucial selection conditions up front: FREE and unauthenticated, so an agent knows no credentials are needed. It gives clear context for when this is the right call but offers no explicit exclusions or named alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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