mma_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior, and it does disclose cursor pagination semantics and the need to use real facet keys. However, it mentions an 'optional geo radius' without exposing a matching schema parameter, which could mislead an agent; it also does not explicitly state that search is read-only or safe to execute.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 6-parameter search tool with no annotations and a 50% schema description coverage, the description provides the main search model, pagination approach, and prerequisite setup. It is almost complete, but the unresolved 'geo radius' mention and unanswered sort/limit behavior leave some gaps.

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?

The description goes beyond the schema by clarifying that q is natural-language with semantic ranking, filters are structured facet filters, and that cursor should be passed back until null. It also tells the agent to use mma_describe_catalog for valid facet keys, which adds practical meaning to the filters parameter. However, sort and limit are left to the schema/enum, and the 'geo radius' is not mapped to any parameter.

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 identifies a structured marketplace search with category, facet filters, natural-language query, and geo radius. It also suggests a prerequisite catalog call (mma_describe_catalog), which distinguishes it from lookup/get siblings like mma_get_listing and mma_get_provider.

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?

It gives explicit usage guidance: call mma_describe_catalog first to obtain real facet keys, and pass cursor back until null for pagination. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the search-vs-specific-lookup distinction is strongly implied.

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