fiverr_search

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the data is public, sourced from server-rendered search pages via a real browser-rendering backend, which signals potential latency or scraping-based behavior. It also lists the exact fields returned in normalized summaries, providing transparency about response content, though it does not mention rate limits or failure modes.

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: the first states the action, the second details the return fields and data source. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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 simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, parameters (implicitly), return content, and data source. It could be slightly more explicit about pagination behavior or browser-rendering caveats, but the schema already documents the page parameter. Overall, it covers the essentials.

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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage (q as free-text keyword, page as 1-based result page defaulting to 1). The description's 'free-text keyword' matches the schema, adding no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Per baseline, 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?

Description opens with 'Search Fiverr gigs' – a specific verb + resource. It further specifies free-text keyword search, public listings, and a list of returned fields, clearly distinguishing it from the fiverr_gig and fiverr_seller tools in the sibling set.

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 conveys a clear use case: search Fiverr's public gig listings by keyword, returning summary data. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives like fiverr_gig or fiverr_seller, but the context is evident from the tool name and description. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given, so it's clear but incomplete on alternatives.

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