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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds real context: results are ids intended for get_free or buy_listing, prices appear in the user's currency, and wake-word results are language-scoped. It does not mention pagination or result ordering, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by what the results are used for and the alternative tool. No redundant or filler wording.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the resource searched, the result shape (ids for free vs. paid), currency behavior, and the sibling alternative. The main remaining gap is pagination/limit behavior across up to 24 results, which an agent may need to reason about.

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 coverage is only 50%, so the description should compensate more than it does. It clarifies free_only, and that wake_language is what the model listens for, but largely echoes the schema's own 'Replies and prices follow it' note on language, and says nothing about limit (max 24) or query matching behavior.

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 ('Searches the Ania marketplace for avatars and wake words') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling tool search_avatars ('For a visual avatar gallery use search_avatars'). An agent can tell what this returns versus the gallery search 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to search_avatars for a visual gallery and names the downstream tools (get_free, buy_listing) that consume the returned ids, which clarifies the intended workflow. It stops short of stating exclusions such as when to prefer search_avatars entirely or how this relates to list_categories/list_styles, so it is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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