marketplace_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that this is a search operation and lists filter options, but does not mention authentication requirements, result ordering, pagination, or whether it is read-only. This is a basic description with minimal behavioral context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a compact list of filter options. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundancy or filler.

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 an output schema, the description gives sufficient context: global scope, filterable fields, and implicit read-only intent. It does not explain 'limit' or result ordering, but these are not critical given the schema exists and the default limit is visible in the input schema. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use 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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must explain parameter meanings. It does so for kind (with examples mcp_server, knowledge, idea), domain (crypto, reverse, algo, embedded), tags, and query. However, it omits the 'limit' parameter, which remains undocumented. This partial compensation earns a 4.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Search'), a defined resource ('the global marketplace for listings'), and enumerates the filter dimensions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as marketplace_publish, marketplace_subscribe, and marketplace_export, which serve different functions.

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 the use case—searching listings—but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It does not mention sibling tools or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage from the purpose.

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