search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination ('Use cursor to get next page'), which is useful context, but doesn't cover other critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the search results look like. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences: 'Search marketplace. Use cursor to get next page.' Every word earns its place—the first states the purpose, and the second adds crucial behavioral context. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly efficient.

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 complexity of a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'marketplace' entails, how results are returned, or any limitations. The pagination hint is helpful, but overall, it lacks sufficient detail for an AI agent to use the tool effectively without guesswork.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description adds value by mentioning the cursor for pagination, which is a behavioral aspect not covered by the schema. This compensates well for the lack of parameters, earning a score above the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Search marketplace' states the action (search) and target (marketplace), but it's vague about what 'marketplace' refers to in this context. It doesn't distinguish from many sibling tools like 'search_events', 'search_groups_posts', 'search_pages', etc., which all perform searches but on different resources. The description is too generic to clearly differentiate this tool's specific purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling search tools (e.g., 'search_events', 'search_pages', 'search_people'), there's no indication of what makes 'search' different—whether it's a general search across all resources or specific to marketplace items. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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