market_search_tool

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses zero cost/auth requirements, the shape of returned metadata, the search-is-exhaustive semantics behind an empty result, and the AIMARKET_HUB_URL override for pointing at another hub. It leaves out ranking/ordering behaviour and what the trust score means, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then caveats in descending order of importance (free, return shape, empty-result semantics, config override). Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still gives the agent enough to act: what a call costs, what comes back, what an empty result means, and where the next call goes. Nothing needed to call or interpret 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 description coverage is 100% (limit, intent, category, max_price_usd are all documented with defaults and examples), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as how intent is matched or how max_price_usd interacts with the returned prices, making this baseline territory.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Discover paid AI capabilities listed on an AIMarket hub, with prices') with the scope made explicit. It also names the downstream sibling ('pass both ids to market_invoke to run one'), which separates it cleanly from market_invoke_tool and the generic web_search_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?

Clear context for use: it is free, needs no wallet/key/payment channel, and the next step is stated. The empty-result rule ('the hub lists only capabilities it can actually execute, so an empty result means it genuinely does not sell that') is genuinely useful guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over web_search_tool or metis_verify_tool, so no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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