service_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does convey that the index is local and bounded (implying no external network fetch, reinforced by the schema note that the query is never forwarded), but it omits rate limits, pagination behavior for offset/limit, and what a result or empty result looks like.

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 sentence is short, but it contains a duplicated "(free) (free)" fragment, which is pure waste and suggests an unpolished definition. The single clause is front-loaded, but the redundancy undercuts the structure score.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 60% schema description coverage, this one-line description is not sufficient. An agent cannot determine return shape, pagination semantics, or how this differs from the numerous other search and directory siblings.

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 coverage is 60%, and the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. The limits on q (12 distinct words), offset, and limit are only discoverable from the schema, and the description does not clarify filter semantics like network normalization or category exact-match.

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 provides a verb ("Search") and a resource ("a bounded local index of public x402 catalogues"), so the basic action is identifiable. However, "x402 catalogues" is niche jargon and the description does nothing to distinguish this tool from the many other search-style siblings such as maps_search, news_search, or image_search.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The repeated "(free)" tag hints at a cost advantage over paid siblings but does not explain when the free local index is preferable to a live source search.

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