search_markets_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention filtering, pagination, search behavior (e.g., partial match), or any side effects. The schema parameters imply these behaviors, but the description fails to clarify.

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 extremely concise (one sentence). While efficient, it sacrifices valuable guidance. For a tool with 7 parameters, a bit more structure (e.g., listing key optional parameters) would improve usability without losing conciseness.

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?

The description is incomplete for the tool's complexity. It does not explain the return format, search scope, or how to interpret results. With no output schema and many sibling tools, the description fails to equip the agent for correct invocation.

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 each parameter is described with names and descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation. However, it does not elaborate on how parameters interact or default behaviors.

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 'Search markets by name' clearly states the action (search) and resource (markets by name), distinguishing it from retrieval tools like get_all_markets. However, it does not differentiate from other search tools like search_bookmakers_by_name, as all share similar phrasing.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_all_markets for full list, or other search tools for different entities). The description lacks context cues for appropriate usage scenarios.

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