l402-search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: it discloses the privacy model (topic filters go to relays, whereas payment method and query text are matched locally) and flags announcement text as untrusted data. It stops short of describing result shape or relay failure/timeout behavior, keeping it out of the top tier.

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?

Five tight sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded before the caveats. Slightly dense with several distinct warnings stacked together, but each sentence carries actionable information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries more burden, and it largely meets it by sketching what results are ('descriptive results') and the trust posture of announcement text. It doesn't describe pagination, result fields, or behavior on relay timeout, which are the remaining gaps for a multi-relay query 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 the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds semantics by explaining WHERE matching happens per parameter: topics are pushed to the relays while paymentMethod and query text are evaluated locally. That distinction is not in the schema and directly affects how an agent should combine filters.

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 specific verb (Search) and resource (Nostr relays) constrained to kind 31402 paid API / storage announcements, which is precise enough to distinguish it from generic search tools. It does not, however, name or contrast against the closest siblings (l402-discover, l402-service-directory), so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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 useful boundary conditions ('No storage node or wallet is contacted', 'Wildbloom checkout cannot be bought with l402-fetch/pay'), which imply when this tool is and isn't appropriate. But it never states when to choose this over sibling discovery tools like l402-discover or l402-service-directory, leaving the core routing decision to inference.

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