search_market

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value: it discloses that only top visible orders are returned, that this is not guaranteed liquidity or a full-market average, and that order owners are omitted. It does not cover rate limits or credential scoping beyond what the schema says.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then immediately the critical data limitations. No filler; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers what the data represents and its limitations well. Missing only explicit routing guidance to sibling price tools, which would round it out.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds marginal meaning ('for one item', 'estimating depth for one side') that reinforces the item_code and depth_quantity semantics, but the schema already documents each parameter including the single-side depth constraint.

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?

States a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('visible buy/sell order book for one item'), with the depth-estimation capability noted. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_market_price and get_work_market by the 'order book' framing, though it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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 a read-only market-inspection use case but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tools (e.g., get_market_price for a single price). The caveats about data scope hint at the intended usage context without stating it.

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