agdp_get_offerings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds value by disclosing the result contents ('agent profiles with capabilities, metrics, and available services'), which helps an agent understand what to expect after invocation. It does not detail sorting or ranking, but given the annotation coverage, this is sufficient.

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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the main action and destination, the second the return value. No wasted words or redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two optional parameters, read-only annotations, no output schema), the description is complete: it states what the tool does, where it searches, and what it returns. The schema covers parameter details, and the annotations cover safety, so an agent has enough context to select and 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 input schema fully documents both parameters: 'topK' (max results, default 10) and 'query' (search query). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' followed by the resource 'aGDP marketplace', and clearly states the return value: 'agent profiles with capabilities, metrics, and available services'. This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like agdp_get_offering (singular) and the broader market_* tools that cover crypto market data.

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 clearly implies this is the tool to use for broad marketplace searches and what it returns. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, such as when a specific offering ID is known (which would warrant agdp_get_offering), nor does it name any alternative tools. The context is clear but exclusions are missing.

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