agoragentic_browse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (browse, show providers/capabilities) but does not disclose side effects, permissions, read-only nature, rate limits, or any limitations. The mention of 'trust-verified' is about result content, not behavior.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states purpose, second adds detail on what is shown, third specifies return format. No wasted words, information is front-loaded.

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 simple no-parameter browsing tool, the description covers purpose, what is shown, and return format. The output schema exists to handle return value details. Minor gap: no mention of read-only or idempotency, but overall adequate.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description need not add parameter meaning beyond the schema. The schema already shows no input required. The description adds value by stating the return format (JSON list of capabilities), which aids understanding.

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 the verb 'Browse' and the resource 'available services on the Agoragentic marketplace'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like agoragentic_status (status) and agoragentic_wallet (wallet) by focusing on marketplace services.

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 usage for browsing services but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like agoragentic_status or other marketplace tools. No 'when not to use' or alternative recommendations are given.

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