marketplace_search_applications

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it returns a list of matching applications, but does not disclose whether the search is case-sensitive, how partial matches are handled, if pagination is applied, or any rate limits or auth requirements. It also doesn't indicate whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, though searching implies read-only.

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 with a clear structure: one-line purpose sentence, then docstring-style parameter and return descriptions. It avoids unnecessary fluff. However, the section headings are a bit formal but acceptable for machine parsing.

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?

The description is adequate for a search tool with a simple call pattern, but it lacks guidance on edge cases such as empty results, error handling, and how to use the output with other marketplace tools. The output schema exists but isn't described, which is acceptable, but the description doesn't mention any specific search behaviors (e.g., wildcards) that might be critical for an agent to know.

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%, meaning the description must explain parameters. The description provides brief explanations for search_term (match against names and descriptions), app_type (filter by type), and vendor (filter by vendor), which adds some meaning beyond the schema's bare parameter names. However, the valid values for app_type (e.g., 'marketplace', 'one-click') are only given in the description, not in the schema, so this is helpful. It doesn't explain how multiple parameters combine (AND or OR) or the format of the return list.

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 applications by name, description, or other criteria given as parameters. It differentiates from siblings like marketplace_get_application which retrieves a specific app, and marketplace_get_applications_by_vendor which filters by vendor. However, the 'other criteria' phrase is vague and doesn't enumerate all possible filters beyond the listed parameters.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings such as marketplace_get_applications_by_vendor or marketplace_get_popular_marketplace_apps. It doesn't mention that vendor or app_type can be used to narrow results, or that this is the general-purpose search tool. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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