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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: semantic ranking, empty-query behavior, the return payload (slugs, prices, quality stats, total, has_more), pagination mechanics, and the actionable status rule that "degraded" means the vendor is paused until unavailable.available_at.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose, then matching semantics, then return shape, then pagination and status handling. One sentence is garbled ("status 'degraded' means the vendor is paused until unavailable.available_at"), which costs a bit of clarity, but there is little wasted text overall.

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, the description correctly documents the return fields, totals, and pagination contract, and covers the degraded-status edge case. The status sentence is confusingly worded, which slightly weakens an otherwise complete picture for a search tool.

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 already defines all three parameters. The description goes beyond it by explaining how query is interpreted (matching by meaning, vendor/model names ranked first, empty string lists all tools) and by tying offset to next_offset from the prior page.

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 (search/find) and resource (marketplace tools) with the mechanism spelled out: plain-language, meaning-based matching. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like inspect_tool, run_tool, and list_categories.

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?

Gives clear usage context: empty query lists every live tool, name a vendor/model to rank it first, and paginate via next_offset when has_more is true. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (e.g. list_categories or inspect_tool) or stating when not to use this tool, so it is strong context without explicit exclusions.

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