Browse Marketplace

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

With no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so clearly: 'Read-only — no side effects, no auth required.' It also discloses the prompt-injection fencing behavior, which is valuable operational context beyond what the schema or annotations provide.

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 compact and well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then gives usage guidance and alternatives, then notes safety/relevant behavioral details. Every sentence adds value, and no redundant or filler content is present.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, an output schema, and fully documented parameters, the description covers all essential context: purpose, typical use cases, related tools, read-only safety, auth requirements, and user-content injection fencing. Nothing an agent needs to select and call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a detailed description with defaults and allowed values. The tool description adds only a high-level mention of 'filtering and search,' which does not meaningfully enhance the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: read-only browse of KA§§A marketplace posts with filtering and search. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming what it is for (discovering bounties, products, services, hiring posts) and what other tools are for.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: use this tool to discover marketplace content, and use civitae_post, civitae_stake, or civitae_forum for the respective alternatives. This is strong when-to-use guidance with named alternatives, leaving little to inference.

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