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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the behavioral constraint that re-export replaces generated output and can publish through an active automatic integration, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it does not explain side effects on related orders or feeds.

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?

Front-loads the action and its components, then quickly covers return shape, parameter sourcing, and warnings. It is dense but well organized; the return-value string is arguably redundant given no output schema, but still helpful.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers when to use, parameter sourcing, return shape, and a strong caution. It leaves out the precise destructive scope (what exactly is cleared/re-exported) and any permission requirements, but is otherwise complete enough for a repair 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% for 2 parameters, so the description must (and does) explain both: marketplace_id comes from list_marketplaces, and project_id is optional/inferred or required with list_projects fallback. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare integer types in 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?

States a specific verb (rebuild/clear/re-export) and resource (marketplace internal profiles, cache), and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_marketplace, marketplace_status, and repair_ad. An agent can tell this is a state-repair tool, not a status or read operation.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('marketplace is in a broken or inconsistent state'), gives preconditions (project_id_required otherwise, call list_projects), and adds a caution ('confirm with the user before repair; do not retry blindly'), which is strong routing guidance.

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