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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds the 'active' filter and explains the domain meaning of each board, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose return format, ordering, pagination, or any side-effect relevant traits. For a read-only browse tool, this level is adequate but not extensive.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action ('Browse active listings') and then compactly lists all seven boards. Each board's explanation is necessary and the structure is efficient, though the long list makes it slightly dense.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the primary functionality and all board options. It does not explicitly state the return format or pagination, but the limit parameter in the schema addresses this. Overall, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke the tool 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 baseline is 3. The description enriches the 'board' parameter by explaining each enum value's real-world meaning, which goes beyond the schema's bare enum. City and limit are already self-explanatory in the schema, so the extra board detail justifies a score above baseline.

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+resource ('Browse active listings on the ServiceWindow marketplace') and enumerates seven distinct board types with clear purposes. This differs sharply from sibling tools get_truck and search_trucks, making its scope unambiguous.

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 board descriptions strongly imply when each board would be useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or exclusions. An agent can infer that this tool is for browsing marketplace listings rather than fetching a specific truck or searching trucks, but the guidance remains implicit.

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