search_listings

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behaviors on its own. It only says the tool searches and filters; it does not mention return format, pagination, result limits, read-only status, or any side effects. Some behavioral context is captured by the schema defaults, but the description adds little beyond the tool's name.

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 one, front-loaded sentence that clearly opens with the action and resource, then lists filter categories. It is efficient with minimal overhead, though 'and more' is slightly vague and could be replaced with concrete examples.

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?

With 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is the main source of high-level guidance. It covers the essential purpose and main filter dimensions, which is adequate for a basic call, but it omits information about how filters interact, what the response looks like, and whether results are paginated or limited.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well documented. The description adds a high-level grouping (commodity, location, price range) and commodity examples, but does not provide additional meaning about parameter combinations, units, or edge cases. 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?

The description states a specific verb ('search') and resource ('mining projects, tenements, and mineral properties on Mine Market'). It also mentions filtering by commodity, location, and price range. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by its search/filter intent, but does not explicitly name or contrast with any alternative tool.

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 implies this tool is used for exploring and filtering listings, which is distinguishable from get_listing_details or list_commodities, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The usage context is inferable but not stated.

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