facebook_marketplace_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that only the first page is available, that further pagination requires a logged-in session and is out of scope, that most filters are ignored on the plain browse feed (except property_rentals), and that the endpoint may take up to a minute due to retries. These are non-obvious operational details.

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 dense but well-organized, covering purpose, pagination limits, filter behavior, and latency in a logical flow. Each sentence adds distinct value, though the length is substantial. It could be trimmed slightly without losing critical details.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description covers all essential aspects: return fields, pagination limitations, parameter interactions, and performance expectations. The browse vs. search distinction is fully explained. The description leaves no major gaps for an agent 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?

All 8 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so a baseline of 3 is warranted. The description adds meaningful interaction semantics: minPrice/maxPrice/sortBy/daysSinceListed/condition are ignored on the browse feed except for property_rentals, which is not fully captured in the schema. This extra context elevates the score above baseline.

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 opens with 'Search Facebook Marketplace' and specifies the resource (Marketplace search/browse results) and the data returned (listing id, title, price, city/state, thumbnail). It distinguishes itself from facebook_marketplace_item by focusing on search/browse result lists, not individual item details.

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?

It clearly explains the browse vs. search modes ('Omit both query and category to get the location's browse feed'), details filter constraints ('only take effect alongside a query or category'), and warns about latency ('can take noticeably longer than other search endpoints'). Though it doesn't name alternative tools explicitly, the guidance is unambiguous.

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