macaroons_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that results are ranked and include price, predicate hash, and freshness, which is helpful. However, it does not describe sorting behavior, pagination semantics beyond the schema's limit parameter, error conditions, or the exact structure of the returned listings.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then efficiently adds return-value highlights and the key cost-related behavior.

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 search tool with a small parameter set and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what results contain, and that no payment is needed; minor gaps such as exact response formatting and sort criteria are not critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond repeating the concept of 'matching an intent' and does not elaborate on how the 'limit' affects ranking or result completeness.

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 ('Search') and resource ('Macaroon Network') and clearly states the purpose: finding capabilities matching an intent. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly describing a read-only discovery operation with ranked results, rather than metadata access, purchase, or execution.

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 implies this is the discovery tool to use before purchasing or executing, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it. The statement 'Free, no payment required' provides useful context that this is a non-purchase operation, but it stops short of routing the agent away from siblings like macaroons_metadata.

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