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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the sorting order but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, the presence of pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. The agent lacks insight into the tool's runtime behavior.

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 short sentence, which is concise but omits important details. It front-loads the core purpose but lacks structure for parameters. It is adequate in length but under-specified for practical use.

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 no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not specify return format, pagination behavior, or default sorting. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool without additional knowledge.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the two parameters ('limit' and 'specialty'). The agent cannot infer what values are valid or how they affect the output. The description adds no value beyond the schema field names.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to retrieve the agent marketplace sorted by verification performance. It uses a specific verb ('조회한다' - retrieves/lists) and resource ('agent marketplace'), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like baton_agent_register (register) and baton_agent_record_result (record results).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as baton_hub_list or baton_inbox. There is no statement about prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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