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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds behavior those annotations cannot express: ambiguous names return candidate lists rather than a single guess, and setupGuide content is summarized here but retrievable in full via get_netactuate_doc. No error or rate-limit behavior is mentioned, keeping it short of a 5.

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-loaded with the return shape and closing with the usage/exclusion guidance, which is the right order. The middle field enumeration is dense and long, but it is justified because there is no output schema — this is the only place the agent learns what comes back.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the return payload, flagging the optional setupGuide, and pointing to get_netactuate_doc for the full docs page. Combined with the stated scope limits and alternative tools, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the single `app` param is already documented, yet the description still adds meaning: three accepted input forms, the ambiguity fallback, and concrete examples. This goes beyond restating the schema, though it does not describe length or sanitization constraints which the schema already enforces.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Returns one marketplace listing in full,' then enumerates the actual contents (features, vendor, licensing, support tier, type, vpu, freeDemo). It is clearly distinguished from find_marketplace_apps (search) and get_netactuate_doc (docs page) by naming what each covers.

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?

States exactly what input forms are accepted (slug, URL from find_marketplace_apps or search_netactuate, or a name like 'Wowza Streaming Engine') and what happens on ambiguity — up to ten candidates instead of a guess. It also names an explicit exclusion and the alternative: 'It does not say where the app runs: for locations, list_data_centers.'

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