Search trader barters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one helpful behavior—that item and trader IDs in results are resolved to names—but it does not describe response structure, pagination, or any other operational details. It is not misleading, but coverage is only partial.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose and filter scope are front-loaded, and the parenthetical explanation adds clarity without bloating the text.

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 simple read-only search tool with fully documented parameters, the description is nearly complete. It explains the resource, the filters, and one key output behavior; only the lack of an output schema means the return shape is not explicitly described, but this is not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description reinforces the item/trader filter relationship and the ID-resolution behavior, but it does not add significant meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('trader barter offers'), and clarifies the concept with 'trade items instead of paying cash.' This clearly distinguishes barters from cash purchases and from sibling tools like search_items and search_crafts.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when looking for barter trades involving a particular item and/or trader. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough that an agent can route correctly without further inference.

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