search_agent_marketplace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the catalog is discovery-only, that unknown price/evaluation/risk metadata stays explicit, that execution re-checks tenant/company/RBAC/entitlement/connector/HITL policy, and that results are explicitly non-installable. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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 each sentence earns its place: purpose is front-loaded, followed by critical discovery-only caveats, the lifecycle alternative, and then parameter semantics. There is no fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 search tool with five optional parameters and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it covers the catalog semantics, filtering behavior, security re-checking, non-installability, lifecycle routing, and all parameter meanings. An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be spelled out in prose.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining all five parameters: query as free-text search, kind as exact action/worker filter, domain as exact domain filter, limit as 1-200 cap, and include_inputs as whitelisted input-field contracts. Each parameter gains real meaning beyond its bare type and default.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Discover governed Lightbulb actions and workers as synthetic catalog rows.' It clearly establishes this as a discovery/search tool and differentiates it from lifecycle tools by stating results are non-installable synthetic catalog rows and pointing to list_agent_marketplace_listings for lifecycle work.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: it is 'discovery-only', the synthetic id 'must never be passed to install, pin, or invoke tools', and lifecycle work should start with list_agent_marketplace_listings using the server-authoritative listing_id and revision_id. It also explains the optional domain overlay behavior, making both when-to-use and when-not-to-use clear.

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