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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns adverts and that filtering is optional, but does not elaborate on return format, pagination beyond the limit parameter, or any edge cases. Given the annotations, a 3 is appropriate – it adds some context without contradicting structured data.

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 with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the sibling distinction and a filter hint. Every sentence contributes value.

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 simple read-only list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, distinguishes from alternatives, and gives filter guidance. It could mention pagination behavior (though limit is self-explanatory) or return format, but those are minor given the simplicity. The tool is adequately described for an agent 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% and both parameters have descriptions. The description repeats the category hint already in the schema ('use getMarketplaceCategories to see available categories') without adding new semantics. For limit, the schema already explains the default. No additional meaning beyond the schema is provided, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('Nomad Marketplace adverts') with a clear definition ('third-party partner deals and services'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from Stays ('This is separate from Stays (accommodation listings)'), which separates it from the many getStaysBy* siblings. The location (nomadstays.com/nomad-marketplace) adds concrete context.

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 description provides explicit guidance: it names the alternative tool family ('use the getStaysBy* tools for accommodation instead') and references getMarketplaceCategories for filter options. This leaves no ambiguity about when to use this tool versus siblings.

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