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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the full burden. 'Browse' and 'Lists' imply a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state non-mutating behavior or clarify that 'open' is a default filter rather than a fixed scope. There is no mention of pagination or rate limits, though output schema may cover return structure.

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, directly front-loaded with the main action, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 four optional parameters and an output schema present, the description is adequate for basic use. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus siblings like market.post or market.message, nor does it mention any prerequisites or filters beyond the implied 'open' default. This leaves some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds marginal value by listing category names (bounties, products, services, hiring, ISO) that map to the category parameter, but it does not significantly enhance schema meaning.

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's function with a specific verb ('browse') and resource ('marketplace posts'), and enumerates the content types it lists (bounties, products, services, hiring posts, ISO collaborators). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like market.post or market.message, which are creation/messaging actions.

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 implies usage by listing what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention sibling tools. Since there is no dedicated browse sibling and the verb 'browse' is distinct, the context is clear enough, though explicit when-not guidance is absent.

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