search_market

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels at it. It discloses that the tool reads the live site ('reads the live site'), is the only tool whose results change without file edits, and includes a 15-minute cache. It also explains the behavioral implication of max_owned_percent (differentials). This is rich, actionable context beyond any structured data.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with purpose, then details key parameters, and closes with behavioral notes. Every sentence contributes meaning without repetition or fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently uses three short paragraphs.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (so return values are covered) and 7 parameters, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, required parameter, key parameter semantics, live nature, caching, and a warning about option impact. It omits details like result ordering or filter logic, but these are likely covered by the output schema and parameter names. It is sufficiently complete for a search 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It effectively explains the two non-obvious parameters: position (required, with enumeration and consequence of omission) and max_owned_percent (with reasoning for its use). Other parameters (club, name, limit, max_value, min_points) are self-explanatory from their names and types, so additional elaboration is reasonably forgone. The added value for the two complex parameters brings this above baseline.

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 it searches the entire market ('Search the whole Liga Record player market') and explicitly contrasts it with squad searches ('not just the squad'), effectively distinguishing it from the sibling tool search_squad. The verb 'search' and resource 'market' are specific, and the phrase 'not just the squad' provides differentiation.

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 when to use this tool ('whole market' vs 'squad') but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It also provides a critical usage instruction ('position is required') and hints at the utility of max_owned_percent for differentials, but lacks clear exclusion criteria or comparison with sibling tools like search_squad.

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