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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: it enumerates what is returned (Marketplace state, capabilities, private-link status) and gives a security guarantee that bearer-link secrets and broker credential identifiers are never exposed. It doesn't discuss pagination or result volume, but the tool is unscoped by parameters anyway.

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 sentences, no redundancy, and the identification of what is listed comes before the security caveat. Every clause conveys distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return-value information, and it does so by naming the returned facets plus the exclusion of secrets. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation, which matters for an agent choosing among several marketplace listing tools.

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 zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description usefully clarifies the implicit scoping — results are always for the authenticated owner, never another user — which is the only semantic an agent could get wrong here.

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 opens with a specific verb (Lists) and a scoped resource (the authenticated owner's account and strategy publications), then enumerates the fields surfaced (Marketplace state, explicit capabilities, private link status). It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the singular sibling get_my_marketplace_publication or from marketplace_accounts/marketplace_strategies.

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 statement of when to call this versus get_my_marketplace_publication, marketplace_accounts, or marketplace_strategies — all plausible alternatives in the sibling list. Usage is only inferable from the name and the possessive scope, so an agent must guess at routing.

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