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

Annotations already establish read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: seller names/descriptions are unverified, offers and prices are seller-declared, and the pre-payment quote is final.

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 front-loaded and compact. Every clause adds useful information: search dimensions, sorting, trust warning, offer shape, price units, and quote finality.

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 no output schema and no schema parameter descriptions, the definition still explains what sellers are returned, how they can be sorted, what offers contain, and the trust/pricing caveats. It remains somewhat incomplete on pagination/limit behavior and the exact response shape.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It maps the main search dimensions (free text, skill id, tag) and sort options (reputation or registration time), but it omits the limit parameter and does not clarify combination behavior among q, tag, and skill.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: searching listed sellers by free text, skill id, or tag. It distinguishes this directory search from supply/join workflows implicitly, but it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tools.

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?

Usage is implied by the search framing, but the description does not say when to use this tool versus aic_supply or aic_join_guide, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. It is minimally adequate for selecting the tool but leaves routing to inference.

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