search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose real behavior: matching is word-by-word and also intent-mapped into Atlas categories, and results are ranked by x402 payments on the newest day then by self-reported paid calls. It omits auth needs, pagination/caps, and rate limits, so it is informative but not complete.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then matching semantics, then ranking, then the operator note. Every sentence carries information, though the final operator clause is slightly tangential to the core search action.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry behavior, and it covers purpose, matching rules, ranking, and that operators are also returned. It does not describe result shape (fields per seller), auth, or pagination, leaving modest gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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%, so both parameters are already documented (limit: default 10, max 25; query: words, a host, or the job you need done), which sets a baseline of 3. The description adds how the query is interpreted (intent into Atlas categories), but says nothing about the limit parameter beyond the schema.

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 clear verb and resource ("Find sellers that do a job") plus the matching mechanism (word-by-word plus intent into Atlas categories), and even notes it surfaces matching operators. It is distinguishable from market_today and compare, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to avoid.

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?

Usage is only implied: it is the lookup entry point for finding sellers, and the example intents hint at suitable query shapes. There is no explicit when-to-use vs market_today or seller, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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