搜索技能市场

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable beyond-annotation behavior: empty query returns all 125 bundled skills, discovery is free, and returned developer descriptions are untrusted data. This is meaningful operational context without contradicting the annotations.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the core purpose, the empty-query behavior, and the cost/trust warning. The main verb and resource are front-loaded, with no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 low-complexity, optional-parameter search tool with strong annotations, the description covers purpose, catalog scope, cost, and trust. However, it leaves the 'category' parameter unexplained and does not describe the output shape, which an agent might need when filtering or parsing results.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the 'search' or 'category' parameters. It only implies that an empty query returns the full catalog, leaving the semantics of 'category' completely undocumented. With low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate and did not.

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 states a specific action ('List/search') over a concrete resource ('all published skills') and adds a distinctive outcome ('exact per-success prices'). It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the 'all published skills' scope and pricing focus differentiate it from market.describe, market.invoke, market.wallet, and market.receipt.

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 this is the discovery entry point ('An empty query lists the full catalog') and notes that discovery is free, giving clear context. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer market.describe for details or market.invoke for execution, nor does it state any exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.

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