Search Aftermarket

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: a 20-searches-per-minute rate limit, multi-second cold-search latency, the fact that purchases cannot be made through the API, how saleType changes the meaning of price, that prices are in cents and only binding at checkout, and that delivery occurs via seller transfer.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then usage trigger, then critical price-quoting caveat, then purchase/rate-limit logistics. Long, but nearly every sentence carries decision-relevant information; the emphasis markers aid scanning.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so: it explains the `saleType` field values, what `price` means in each case, the cents unit, and that `buyUrl` is where the user completes purchase. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: `query` accepts either a keyword (`coffee`) or a full domain (`coffee.com`), and for a full domain `exactMatch` holds its listing with related listings following. It also reinforces the integer-cents convention for prices.

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 and resource (find registered domains for sale on the aftermarket) and names the marketplaces it aggregates. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like check_domain and list_marketplace by describing its merged-listing, lowest-price scope.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: when check_domain reports a name is taken (`aftermarketSearch` in its result), or to browse names by keyword. This routes the agent from a sibling tool into this one with a concrete trigger.

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