Services search listings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavior context by explaining the semantic difference between 'fixed' and 'quote' listings and what each implies for the purchase flow, going 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?

Two concise sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose and scope, the second explains the key filter and its behavioral implications. No wasted words or redundant information—every sentence 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?

For a search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential distinction between fixed and quote listings, which is critical for deciding next steps. It doesn't describe the response structure, but that is often not needed for a search tool, and the pagination cursor is documented in the schema. Given the tool's simplicity, this is sufficiently complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning to pricing_mode by explaining the distinction ('fixed' = one-call purchase, 'quote' = requires quote first), and it also lists the category values, reinforcing the enum. This enhances parameter understanding beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 ('Search') and resource ('agent-to-agent service listings'), and lists specific categories (GPU compute, synthetic data, etc.). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like seller_list_listings (seller's own listings) and services_get_listing (single listing) by focusing on searching across all listings.

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 explains how pricing_mode affects the subsequent workflow ('fixed' listings are buyable in one services_purchase call; 'quote' listings need a seller quote first), giving clear context for when to use this search and what to do with results. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of, say, catalog_search_products, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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