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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, sorting, return format, or rate limits. It merely restates the function name's intent, providing no value beyond 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?

Single sentence, zero wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a simple read operation, though it could have added a few clarifying details without losing efficiency.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should inform the agent of expected return shape or behavior. There is no mention of how many listings are returned, default ordering, or whether pagination is supported. The authCode parameter carries some contextual weight but is embedded only in the schema, not the description. The description falls short of being complete for a listing tool.

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 only 50%: the authCode parameter has an extensive inline description, but the limit parameter has none. The tool description does not explain either parameter or compensate for the missing limit documentation. With partial coverage, the description should fill gaps but fails to do so.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'List active OrbitX NFT marketplace listings.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling NFT tools like orbitx_nft_collections and orbitx_nft_items by focusing on 'marketplace listings' and 'active' status. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the scope is precise enough for an agent to infer its distinct role.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without mentioning conditions, prerequisites, or comparing to other NFT-related tools. No exclusions or context provided.

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