search_market_diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does a good job by disclosing the quota cost ('2 GET /search calls (one per market)') and the core diffing behavior, which implies a read-only operation. It doesn't detail the output diff format or edge cases, but the key behavioral traits are present.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core behavior and purpose, then adds the quota detail. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The schema covers all parameters and the description covers the main behavior and quota, so a basic call is well supported. However, with no output schema, the description does not specify what the diffed result card contains, how results are grouped, or when to prefer this tool over related market/search tools.

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%, and every parameter already has a useful description. The tool description adds no new parameter-level semantics; it only echoes the query and two-market concepts already present in the schema. 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 clearly states the operation: same query run in two markets with the result sets diffed, yielding availability/regional insight in one card. This is specific and immediately distinguishes the tool from ordinary search siblings like search_tracks or search_advanced.

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 intended use case is implied through 'availability/regional insight,' but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus market_availability, search_advanced, or the many sibling search tools. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned.

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