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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it uses the same index as search_market and handles filter inference automatically, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It doesn't discuss limitations like potential ambiguity in parsing, but annotations cover safety.

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 concise sentences, with examples embedded, no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded in the title and first sentence. The description is well-structured and easy to scan.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with good annotations, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and relationship to alternatives. No output schema is needed for this simple search-style tool, and the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The only parameter 'question' is described in the schema, and the description provides concrete examples of valid sentences. This adds practical meaning beyond the schema's generic 'user's request, in their words', helping the agent understand format and intent.

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 the tool searches the same index as search_market but accepts a plain sentence and auto-infers filters. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool search_market, which requires exact filters. The verb 'search' and resource 'everything for sale' are specific.

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 instructs: 'Use it when you have the user's own words; use search_market when you already know the exact filters.' This gives clear when-to-use and alternative. It also provides example sentences to illustrate expected input.

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