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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context by stating no API key is required and that the response contains an items array and total count. This goes beyond what the annotations alone convey without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose, then adds the most important usage and response details in a compact, readable way.

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 read-only search tool with seven parameters fully documented in the schema, the description covers the key contextual points: scope, authentication, response shape, and where to get more detail. A minor gap is the lack of any note about pagination or sorting behavior, but those are already in the schema.

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 fully documents all seven parameters including q, count, sortBy, and price filters. The description adds a high-level search intent but does not add parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the complete schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('search') and resource ('active listings on nagora.shop'), making the tool's core function immediately clear. It also hints at its relationship to get_listing by saying full detail is available there, helping distinguish it from its sibling.

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 gives clear context for use: it is for searching active listings, requires no API key, and explicitly directs the agent to use get_listing for full detail before purchasing. It names an appropriate alternative but does not fully enumerate when not to use the tool beyond that distinction.

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