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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so 'Read-only' largely restates structured data. 'No signature' is a genuinely new auth detail not captured by annotations, and the content enumeration hints at the response shape, but overall additions beyond annotations are modest.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, then the parameter note. No wasted clauses, though the quoted `caller` and the clause 'for caller-dependent results' are slightly cryptic.

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 read-only view tool with one optional param, full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is largely sufficient, and it even enumerates the data sections since there is no output schema. It stops short of clarifying what a caller-dependent result actually changes.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes caller as an optional SS58 address to run the query as. The description's 'the account whose view to read (for caller-dependent results)' adds a little meaning about why you would set it, but no format or effect details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus a clearly scoped resource (caller's Marketplace buyer account) with an enumeration of contents: profile, bookmarked stores, digital downloads, orders. This distinguishes the aggregate view from narrower siblings like view_my_orders and view_my_cart, though it never explicitly says so.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name and the word 'my'. There is no statement of when to choose this over view_my_orders / view_my_cart / view_my_seller_profile, nor any exclusion. The only usage-like hint is that caller is 'for caller-dependent results'.

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