GateCore Marketplace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully mentions that results preserve 'organic order' and that listings include 'machine-readable pricing, required scopes, and minimum trust terms', but it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. This provides some transparency but not complete coverage.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every phrase ('governed', 'machine-readable pricing', 'organic order') contributes to understanding the tool's scope and behavior.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description gives a moderate overview but lacks details on return structure, pagination, or result format. It mentions some key attributes of results but does not explain what the response contains or how to interpret it effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. Although it hints at 'minimum trust terms' and 'pricing' which loosely map to min_trust and max_price_cents, it does not explicitly explain the tags, query, or how filtering works. The schema's titles provide minimal semantics, but the description adds little value beyond that.

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 tool discovers 'governed GateCore marketplace capabilities' with a specific verb ('Discover') and resource, and highlights unique attributes (machine-readable pricing, required scopes, trust terms). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_listing or list_procurements by implying a broad discovery/filtering 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?

The intended use is implied as a discovery tool for marketplace capabilities, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as get_listing or list_procurements. No exclusions or 'when not to use' are provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns specific contract terms, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling, authorization needs, or rate limits. 'Fetch' implies read-only, but additional details are missing.

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 a single, focused sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by a concise enumeration of included terms. Every word adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers its purpose and return content. It does not mention edge cases like not-found responses, but for a basic get operation, this is a minor gap. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 elaborate on the listing_id parameter's format, source, or constraints. It is only inferable from the tool name and the phrase 'one governed marketplace listing' that the parameter is the identifier. The description adds no explicit meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Fetch') and the resource ('one governed marketplace listing'), and explicitly enumerates the contract terms it returns. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like discover_listings (which likely returns multiple listings) and list_procurements (which deals with procurements).

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 its usage: when you need a single listing's contract terms. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state 'use this when you have a listing ID'. The sibling name 'discover_listings' suggests a distinction, but the description doesn't provide explicit guidance or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the operation and scope but does not disclose whether authentication is required, what the response format is, or any pagination/ordering behavior. The term 'credential tenant' and 'public modes' add context but remain unexplained.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. However, jargon such as 'credential tenant' and 'public modes' is introduced without explanation, making it less accessible than it could be.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description gives the core purpose and scope. However, there is no output schema and the description does not mention what the returned list contains or any behavioral nuances, leaving some ambiguity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The schema already covers 100% of parameter definitions, and the description does not need to compensate.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'procurement decisions' and adds scope ('for the credential tenant in public modes'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_listing and procure.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'in public modes' hints at a scope limitation, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds useful context about decision outcomes (PROCURE, REVIEW, DENY), gateway delegation, and source of identity/trust. However, it omits side effects (e.g., whether a record is created), required permissions, or error behavior, so transparency is moderate.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add contextual detail about modes and outcomes. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the second sentence is dense with jargon.

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?

Given moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete: it provides some outcome context but leaves out parameter explanations, usage scenarios, prerequisites, and return structure, making it inadequate for reliable standalone invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any of the 5 parameters (listing_id, requester_agent_id, requester_trust, scopes, max_price_cents). The description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema types, failing to compensate for the lack of param documentation.

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 action ('Request governed procurement') and the resource ('a listing'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like discover_listings, get_listing, list_procurements, and submit_lead by focusing on the procurement request action.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'public full mode' but does not explain when to choose procure over submit_lead or other siblings, nor does it provide any usage exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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 states the type of lead and listing constraints but does not disclose side effects, return behavior, error conditions, authentication requirements, or what the system does after submission. For a mutation-like tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action ('Submit'), the object ('consented consumer lead'), and the destination ('supported published listing'). Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool has a complex nested parameter (lead object), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits prerequisites (how to find listing_id, consent verification), expected lead structure, and any post-submission behavior. The description alone would not be sufficient for an agent to reliably invoke this 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It labels 'lead' as a 'consented consumer lead' and 'listing_id' as referring to a 'supported published listing', adding some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain the lead object's structure, required fields, or how to obtain a valid listing_id, leaving major ambiguity for a nested object with additionalProperties allowed.

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 uses the specific verb 'Submit' with the resource 'consented consumer lead' and target 'supported published listing', clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like discover_listings, get_listing, and procure. The scope qualifiers 'consented' and 'supported published' add precision.

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 that this tool is for submitting leads that have consent and where the listing is published and supported, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion criteria, and no references to alternative tools. Sibling names suggest different workflows but are not mentioned.

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