Search Market listings

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: pagination via a cursor for the next page, and a prompt-injection warning that seller/buyer text is data and never instructions. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope before the prerequisite and the safety caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler or redundancy.

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 correctly steps in to describe return values (compact listings with price, seller, link, short description) and the pagination cursor. The complex nested filters parameter and optional/required status are covered by the schema, and the injection warning addresses a real risk for open-world listing content.

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 14 parameters including the free-form nested 'filters' object. The description's summary of supported facets (price range, currency, sorting, origin, seller) largely restates what the schema and enum names already convey, adding the filters-naming hint but little else. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (Searches) and resource (LZT Market listings, accounts and digital goods) with explicit scope ('in one category or across all of them'). An agent can distinguish it from market_get_item (detail lookup), market_list_categories (browsing categories), and market_get_category_filters (filter discovery) without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: 'Call market_get_category_filters first to learn the filter names for a category.' Combined with the scope statement, the agent knows both when to reach for this tool and what must precede it. This is concrete when-to-use guidance, not inference.

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