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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only that results are scoped to 'your' assets, which is mild but real context; nothing about auth beyond the schema's key field or about result shape beyond what the output schema covers.

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 short fragments with the usage condition front-loaded and a callable example. The leading 'bazaar_my_goods.' merely repeats the tool name and is the one piece that does not earn its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. For a zero-required-param read tool, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns (own asset ids), and how it differs from the browse sibling.

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?

Only one optional parameter ('key'), and the schema documents it at 100% coverage including the Bearer-token alternative. The description adds no parameter guidance, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema already carries the semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('list your inventory asset ids') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling, bazaar_browse_listings ('others' open listings'). An agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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 'WHEN: list your inventory asset ids' clause plus the explicit contrast with bazaar_browse_listings gives a clear selection rule. It stops short of naming when-not to use it in other scenarios (e.g. versus bazaar_check_my_offers or bazaar_wallet), so not a full 5.

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