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

Annotations already specify readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it says only settings and configuration are copied, and it documents the return shape including integrationId for the new clone. It does not cover permissions or post-clone state, but the key behavioral traits are clear and consistent with 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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and then moves through return shape and parameter guidance. It is slightly redundant — 'Use this to copy a marketplace configuration to a new marketplace' largely repeats the first sentence — but overall it is dense and useful with no major bloat.

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 mutation tool with two parameters, no output schema, and safety annotations already present, the description provides the necessary return fields and parameter guidance. It does not mention post-clone configuration steps or whether the new marketplace inherits any active status, but it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates: marketplace_id is identified as the source marketplace from list_marketplaces, and project_id is explained as optional (inferred for single-project customers) but required otherwise, with a direction to call list_projects when needed. Both parameters gain clear semantics beyond the bare 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Clone a marketplace — create a copy of it (settings and configuration) as a new marketplace.' This clearly distinguishes it from create_marketplace by focusing on copying an existing configuration. It does not explicitly name alternatives like clone_ad, but the resource is specific enough for an agent to understand.

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 only usage guidance is 'Use this to copy a marketplace configuration to a new marketplace,' which restates the purpose rather than explaining when to choose this over create_marketplace or clone_ad. There are no when-not conditions or named alternatives.

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