MakerRadar

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the logo kind replaces the existing logo, the image is fetched and validated server-side, live listings enter a review queue rather than applying immediately, and the call requires the listings:write scope. Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the replacement note gives the nuance an agent needs; since the old image is only a logo, this does not contradict destructiveHint=false.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then the two behavioral facts that matter (validation and review queue), then the permission requirement. No restated title, no filler.

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 4-parameter mutation with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the missing pieces: overwrite semantics, server-side fetching/validation, moderation delay on live listings, and the required scope. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is absent.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies that kind=logo overwrites the previous logo (a semantic not stated in the schema's 'logo or photo'), and that the URL must be public and https. It says nothing extra about productId or alt, which the schema already covers.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (add an image to a listing) and splits the two modes explicitly: 'logo (kind logo, replaces the old one)' vs 'photo (kind photo)'. It also pins the source constraint to a public https image URL, so an agent can distinguish this from a direct-upload path.

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?

Usage is implied by the source constraint ('from a public https image URL') and the contrast with an upload, and the 'on a live listing it waits for review' clause hints at when the call is appropriate. However, it never names alternatives such as set_listing_cover or remove_listing_photo, nor states when not to use this tool (e.g., replacing a cover image).

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

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

Beyond the annotations (which only flag non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent), the description discloses the auth requirement (launches:write) and the key downstream behavior: MakerRadar reviews every listing before it goes live, so submission is gated rather than immediately live. It does not explain what happens on a repeat call, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the consequence, then the permission requirement. Nothing is repeated and no sentence could be dropped without losing 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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers prerequisites, the review gate, and the parameter dependency. The only gap is the effect of calling it again on an already-chosen launch, which is relevant because the tool is flagged non-idempotent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the Premium-needs-week rule. The description's only addition is restating that the week value comes from get_launch_options, which the schema also implies. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: pick Free or Premium (with an optional week) and submit the listing for review. It explicitly names the sibling get_launch_options as the source of the week value. It doesn't distinguish itself from submit_listing, which is the nearest potentially overlapping sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives conditional guidance on the optional parameter ('Premium needs one; Free may omit it') and points to get_launch_options as the place to obtain a valid week. It also states the required scope, launches:write, which tells the agent what must be in place beforehand. It does not say when to prefer this over draft_listing or submit_listing.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context by specifying that only *public* details are returned and that a comparison page is produced, which tells the agent what to expect from the response beyond the safety profile.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the operation first and then the outputs. The colon-delimited list is efficient, though the phrasing 'each one's public details side by side, which has more community upvotes, and the comparison page' is slightly compressed and could read more cleanly.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and an output schema carrying return details, the description is nearly complete. The one omission is how the agent obtains slugs in the first place (e.g., via search_products), which matters in a catalog of 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both `a` and `b` documented as product URL slugs, so the baseline is 3. The description's '(by their slugs)' restates the schema without adding format examples, slug derivation, or ordering semantics.

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 names a specific verb (compare) and resource (two products), and additionally enumerates what the comparison covers: side-by-side public details, upvote differential, and the comparison page. This is far more concrete than siblings like get_product, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the distinction.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool's nature: use it when you have two product slugs and want them contrasted. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, and no pointer to alternatives such as get_product (single product) or get_alternatives (suggested substitutes), which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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

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

Annotations only declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world; the description adds real behavior beyond them: an out-of-band human approval step is required, the immediate return is a code plus link rather than a credential, and the token only arrives via repeated connect_account_finish calls. It doesn't mention code expiry or what happens on rejection, which keeps it below 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?

Short, front-loaded, and every sentence carries operational weight: what to ask, what comes back, what to display, and the exact next call. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 multi-step authorization handshake this covers the essentials (start, display, approve, finish-with-deviceCode), and an output schema exists so return shapes need no prose. Gaps are minor edges such as code lifetime or behavior if the person declines.

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?

With a single optional parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains that "client" is the name shown to the person. The description adds nothing about it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Ask the person you're helping to let you act for their MakerRadar account" states a specific action and resource, and the flow (returns a short code and a link, then connect_account_finish) makes it clearly distinct from the many read-only listing/product siblings and from connect_account_finish itself.

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?

Explicit sequencing is given: start here, show the code and link, have the person approve, then call connect_account_finish with deviceCode until a token is returned. It also removes a common blocker with "No sign-in needed to start." It stops short of stating failure conditions or when not to use it, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by enumerating the four possible outcomes (pending/denied/expired/approved), disclosing that the token is shown only once, and explaining that it must be sent as a Bearer header on every subsequent call. The non-idempotent, read-writing nature is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false.

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-loads the prerequisite call and the core exchange, then packs the status/retry/token details into a single tight clause. No sentence is filler despite the dense use of parentheticals and em dashes.

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?

Covers ordering, retry behavior, all terminal states, and post-success token usage — everything an agent needs to drive this two-step auth flow correctly. Return-value detail is partly covered by the output schema, and the description fills the one-shot token caveat the schema cannot express.

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 the sole deviceCode parameter is already documented as coming from connect_account, so the description adds little beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

States a specific action and resource — trading a deviceCode for an agent token — and anchors it to the sibling it follows (connect_account). An agent can distinguish this from connect_account without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly says to call it after connect_account and once the person has approved, and tells the agent to re-poll after `interval` seconds when the result is pending. The only gap is the absence of an explicit when-not-to-call or failure-escalation alternative.

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

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

Annotations only say this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world write; the description adds the substantive behavior: nothing is published, the human must sign in via reviewUrl and submit, MakerRadar then reviews it, and an already-listed site short-circuits to its existing page. It also resolves the auth question with "No sign-in needed," which an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 core action and its inputs come first, followed by the return value and the publish gate, then edge cases. Every clause carries information an agent needs; there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 four-parameter draft-creation tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the action, the inputs, the return value (reviewUrl), the human-approval gate, and the already-listed fallback. Nothing needed to call it correctly or set expectations with the user is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and each parameter already carries type and length constraints (2–60, 4–90, 40–4000 characters). The description only restates that url is required and the rest optional, adding no format or content guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Draft a listing on MakerRadar") and scopes it to the person being helped, which cleanly separates it from submit_listing and update_listing. It also makes the draft-only nature explicit ("nothing is published until they do"), so an agent can tell it apart from the publishing siblings without reading either schema.

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?

Gives a clear context for use ("for the person you're helping") and an edge case ("If the site is already listed, returns its page instead"), which tells the agent what to expect on a repeat call. It stops short of explicitly naming submit_listing as the follow-up tool, but the reviewUrl handoff makes the next step obvious.

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

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description is not obligated to restate safety. It does add genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing the ranking logic behind the returned list (editor's picks, then makers' declarations, then relevance/upvotes), which an agent cannot derive from structured fields. It says nothing about pagination behavior or what happens when a slug has no alternatives.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then the ordering rule. Every clause carries 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?

An output schema exists, so return value structure need not be explained, and both parameters are covered by the schema. The one material gap is the absence of any note on result-set size or pagination relative to the limit parameter, but overall the definition is sufficient to call 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 both parameters are already documented in structured data, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces that the slug identifies a single product but adds no new constraint or format guidance, and it does not mention the limit parameter or its default/max.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List the alternatives to one product') and pins the identifier to a slug, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with near-neighbors such as compare_products or get_product, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for finding substitutes for a single product. There is no statement of when to prefer it over compare_products (multi-product comparison) or search_products, and no preconditions such as the slug needing to exist.

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

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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds something the annotations do not: the required scope 'listings:read', which is genuinely useful for an agent planning a call. It doesn't need to explain the return payload since an output schema exists, so the remaining behavioral gap is minor.

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?

It is a single sentence with no filler paragraphs, which is appropriate for a one-parameter tool. But the parenthetical 'the listing earns what MakerRadar's badge earns (the answer says what)' is circular and confusing, and the earning detail is redundant given an output schema that presumably explains it.

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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter, full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema. The description supplies purpose, intended placement, and the required auth scope, which is enough for correct invocation. Only the muddled earning explanation keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

There is a single required parameter and the schema documents it at 100% ('The listing's id.'). The description only implies the same thing via 'the listing's own website', adding no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema fully carries parameter meaning.

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 says concretely that this returns the HTML badge for the listing's own website, which is a specific resource tied to a specific listing. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_my_listing or get_listing_options, though that distinction comes from the name rather than any explicit contrast. The clause about earning 'what MakerRadar's badge earns' is vague and defers the answer elsewhere.

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?

It gives an implied use case ('put it on the homepage'), which tells the agent the intended context for the returned snippet. However, there is no statement of when not to use it, no named alternative, and no guidance on whether the badge must be re-fetched if the listing changes. Usage is suggested rather than specified.

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

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds a real operational fact beyond them: the call requires the launches:write scope, which an agent must have provisioned before invoking. The apparent tension between a read-only tool and a write scope is worth noting but describes API permissions rather than mutating behavior, so it is not an annotation contradiction.

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?

Three compact fragments cover the return contents, the sequencing constraint, and the auth scope with no filler. The parenthetical 'with spots left per week' is dense but carries genuine information about scarcity signaling; the telegraphic style is slightly terse but never ambiguous.

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?

The tool is a one-parameter read with an output schema and full annotation coverage, so little prose is required. The description supplies the prerequisite scope and the follow-up tool, leaving only edge cases (ineligible listing, empty result) unstated — a minor gap for this complexity level.

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 the single productId parameter is documented as 'The listing's id.' The description only implies through 'open to a listing' that the id refers to a listing rather than a product, adding essentially nothing the schema does not already say. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource (launch weeks available to a listing) and enumerates the two options returned, Free and Premium. It is clearly distinguishable from data-mutating siblings like choose_launch, though it never states the verb 'retrieves' explicitly and relies on the tool name to carry that.

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?

'Use before choose_launch' gives an explicit ordering constraint that routes the agent to this tool ahead of the sibling that commits a week. It does not say what to do if no options are returned or when the tool should be skipped (e.g., already-launched listings), so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior: results are ranked by upvotes and the valid week range spans all history. It does not add pagination, result size, or auth context, so it earns moderate but not rich credit above the annotations.

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?

A single sentence with the core action front-loaded, the example parenthetical placed where it is useful, and the scope caveat appended. No filler.

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 one required parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and complete read-only annotations, the definition covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. Minor gap: "full results" is not further characterized, but the output schema relieves that burden.

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 the schema already gives the "week-41-2026" example, so the description's inline example largely restates it. The only marginal addition is the "as in its URL" framing, which is a baseline-3 contribution.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get one launch week's full results") plus the ranking criterion ("ranked by upvotes") and the scope ("any week since MakerRadar began"). This also implicitly separates it from the live-week sibling list_current_launches.

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 phrase "not only the live one" tells the agent this tool serves historical weeks, which is the key routing decision against list_current_launches. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly or stating exclusions, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not guide.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still earns credit by disclosing the auth scope (listings:read) and by flagging that each field's limits are included. It adds no rate-limit or freshness/caching notes, but those are minor for a safe read.

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 core claim, followed by one imperative and one auth note — no filler. The middle enumeration of field groups is a long run-on clause that could be tightened, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values; it instead supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: what the payload covers, when to call it, which tool consumes it, and the required auth scope. Nothing material is absent for a zero-parameter reference tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description goes slightly beyond by noting options are picked "by slug" and that link kinds come with an example of each, which hints at how returned values should be consumed.

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 names a precise resource — the option catalog that update_listing consumes — and enumerates its contents (categories, technologies, platforms, audiences, tags, pricing models, currencies, price periods, demo video hosts, link kinds, field limits). That enumeration distinguishes it from narrower siblings like list_categories and get_pricing, which cover only a slice of this data.

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?

"Call it before editing so you never guess a value" gives a clear trigger tied to a named sibling (update_listing), and "Needs listings:read" states the prerequisite. It stops short of a full routing statement (no explicit when-not or named alternative for read-only catalog needs), which keeps it below a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds the auth requirement (Authorization: Bearer mr_…) and hints that the result includes a listing-readiness flag and token permissions, but says nothing about failure modes when the token is missing or invalid. Useful but thin on behavior beyond annotations.

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?

A single dense sentence with zero filler: it front-loads the identity purpose, then adds readiness and permissions, then the auth requirement. Nothing redundant against the title or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the auth requirement is disclosed. For a zero-parameter, read-only introspection call this is nearly complete; only error/edge-case behavior is absent, which is minor at this complexity.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The auth header is the only 'input' and the description does mention it.

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 resource and what it returns: the account behind an agent token, its readiness to list products, and the token's permissions. That distinguishes it from the listing-oriented siblings such as get_my_listing and list_my_listings. It is phrased as an identity description rather than a verb+resource, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied — an agent should call this to learn which account it acts for or whether it can list — but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The auth prerequisite (agent token) is stated, which is the strongest usage signal present.

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

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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real context on top: the required 'listings:read' authorization and the fact that the response includes derived state such as what's left to make the listing complete and whether it can be submitted for review. It does not state what happens when the id is unknown or belongs to someone else, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: identity and lookup key come first, the returned content second, the auth requirement last. The long parenthetical field enumeration is informative but heavy; trimming it to categories would read faster without losing much.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly: ownership scope, id requirement, auth scope, and payload contents. Only the not-found / not-owned failure mode is left unstated.

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% with a one-line description for productId, so the schema does most of the work. The description still adds a meaningful constraint by scoping the id domain to listings owned by the person you act for, which the schema's 'The listing's id.' does not convey.

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 precise verb and resource — 'One listing of the person you act for, by id' — which immediately separates it from list_my_listings (plural) and from get_product (an arbitrary product rather than one the acting user owns). It then enumerates exactly what comes back (editable fields, status, completeness gaps, review readiness), so an agent knows the payload shape before opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear context for use: fetching a single listing that belongs to the person you act for, gated by the 'listings:read' scope. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. use list_my_listings to discover ids, or get_listing_options for configuration choices), so there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and a closed-world surface, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value beyond them: "No sign-in needed" discloses that no auth is required, and "today's price" signals that prices are volatile and should be re-fetched rather than cached. It does not mention return format or whether the catalogue is paginated, but the output schema covers returns.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, then the sequencing rule, then the auth note. The em-dash enumeration is dense but every listed item earns its place by telling the agent what is purchasable. No filler.

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 zero-parameter read tool with a full output schema, the description covers what the tool is, what it returns, when to call it, and whether auth is needed. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is absent; the only gap, sibling differentiation, is minor for such a simple call.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a single unfiltered catalogue with no filtering or pagination inputs, so there is nothing an agent could mistakenly expect to pass.

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 names a concrete resource — the MakerRadar price catalogue — and enumerates exactly what it contains (Premium launch, featured/boosted weeks, ads, sponsorship, done-for-you submissions) plus the fields returned (id, today's price, what it gets). That is far beyond a restatement of the name. It stops short of 5 because it never distinguishes itself from plausible siblings like get_launch_options or get_listing_options, which an agent may confuse it with.

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?

"Use before start_checkout" gives an explicit sequencing rule and names the sibling tool that should follow, which is real routing guidance. What is missing is any when-not guidance, e.g. whether an agent that already knows the price id should skip this call, or how it relates to get_listing_options.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and determinism profile is fully covered by structured data. The description only adds that the returned data is "public" details, which is mild but useful context about visibility; it says nothing about what happens when a slug is unknown or how the record is shaped.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, hedging, or redundant restatement of the title. Every word contributes to scope or the lookup key.

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 one fully documented parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the definition covers the essentials for a simple read tool. It could be more complete by noting the error/not-found behavior or explicitly contrasting it with search_products, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single slug parameter, so the schema already defines it fully. The description restates the parameter's role ("by its slug") without adding format, case-sensitivity, or fallback behavior, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

"Get the full public details of one product by its slug" gives a specific verb (get), resource (product), scope (one, full public details) and lookup key (slug). It implicitly separates itself from search_products and compare_products by emphasizing a single product, but never names those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 phrase "by its slug" hints that this tool is for retrieval when the slug is already known, which implies search_products is the path when it is not. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no named alternative, leaving routing to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: each row carries a product count and a page, and results are sorted by product count descending, which tells the agent the ordering without a trial call.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource, then the per-entry payload, then the sort order. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to discover by calling the tool.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema present, nothing essential is missing: what is returned, what each item contains, and how items are ordered are all stated. The annotations carry the safety semantics, so the description does not need to repeat them.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly implies no filtering or pagination inputs by describing a single fixed listing, though it never explicitly confirms that no arguments are accepted.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('MakerRadar's categories') and states what each entry contains (product count and page) plus the ordering ('most products first'). No sibling tool covers categories, so differentiation isn't strictly needed, though it doesn't explicitly claim that territory against near-neighbors like search_products or top_products.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step for browsing categories before drilling into products. There is no explicit 'use this when...' statement, no mention of alternatives such as search_products or top_products for finding products, and no prerequisites noted.

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

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

The annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the description is not obligated to cover safety. It still adds two pieces of real behavioral context beyond them: the result set is time-boxed to an ISO week with a fallback to the previous week before the new board opens, and results come back ordered by upvotes.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler that front-loads the resource and immediately qualifies the time window, then the sort order. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs in order to compose a call correctly: what is returned, the time scope including the boundary case, and the ordering. The only missing piece is sibling differentiation against top_products and search_products.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level meaning is added or needed.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('products on MakerRadar's live launch board'), plus a precise scope ('this ISO week's, or the last week until the new one opens') and ordering ('ranked by upvotes'). It does not name any sibling, so an agent must infer on its own how this differs from top_products or search_products.

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 time window is stated, which implies when the tool is appropriate ('this week's launches'), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as top_products or search_products for other time ranges or filtered queries.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them: newest-first ordering, the fields returned per row, and the required auth scope (listings:read) — the latter being the kind of operational prerequisite annotations cannot express.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and follows with contents and the auth requirement — no filler. The mid-sentence inventory ('the account you act for... which account's listings, results ordered newest-first...') is slightly dense but still readable.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list with an output schema, the description covers the resource, ordering, per-item fields and the auth scope — everything needed to call it correctly. Nothing material is missing, though a one-clause pointer to the single-item sibling would make it airtight.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema has 100% coverage and is empty, and the description correctly avoids inventing filter or paging arguments.

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 names a concrete resource ('the listings of the account you act for on MakerRadar') and enumerates what each entry carries (status, public page, management location), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with near-neighbours like list_current_listings or get_my_listing, so it stops short of full disambiguation.

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 phrase 'the account you act for' implies the account-scoped use case, and the token requirement signals a prerequisite. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_my_listing (single item) or list_current_listings (public launches), leaving the routing to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds two things the annotations cannot: a deterministic newest-first ordering and the required auth scope ("Needs billing:checkout"), which is exactly the kind of pre-call context an agent needs. It does not say what an empty result or a missing scope looks like, keeping it below 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?

Two sentences, no filler: the first front-loads what is returned and in what order, the second carries the trigger and the permission scope. Every clause earns its place.

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 parameters, rich annotations and an output schema already present, the description needs only to supply scope, ordering and auth. It does all three, so an agent can call it correctly without further inference.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to add and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 names the resource precisely ("the orders of the person you act for"), plus ordering ("newest first") and the exact fields returned (item bought, listing, week, paid status). It is unambiguous about what it returns, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the nearest sibling, list_my_listings, so an agent must infer orders-vs-listings on its own.

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?

"Use after start_checkout to see when they've paid" gives a concrete trigger condition tied to a named sibling, which is real routing guidance rather than vague context. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use or what to do instead when no checkout has occurred.

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

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

"It's gone at once" discloses that the deletion is immediate with no undo or staging step, and "Needs listings:write" discloses the authorization requirement — both are behavior beyond what the annotations convey (annotations only say readOnly=false, openWorld=false, idempotent=false). The description does not mention that the effect is scoped to a single photo rather than the listing resource, which is why destructiveHint=false is best read as 'the listing survives'; there is tension with the irreversibility language but not a direct contradiction.

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?

Three short sentences with the action and scope front-loaded, followed by the effect and then the permission requirement. Every sentence carries distinct information — verb/resource, irreversibility, auth — with no filler.

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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what matters: what is deleted, immediacy, and the required scope. Minor gaps remain around side effects on gallery ordering or cover designation, but nothing essential to a correct call is missing.

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 the schema already documents both productId and photoId, including that the photo id comes from get_my_listing. The description restates that ID provenance but adds no new format, constraints, or edge cases (e.g., whether photoId must belong to productId), so the baseline applies.

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?

Specific verb and resource with explicit scope: "Remove one photo from a listing's gallery." The 'one photo' scoping and 'by its id' qualifier make clear this deletes a single image rather than the whole listing or gallery, which implicitly separates it from add_listing_image and set_listing_cover. It stops short of naming a sibling outright, so it lands just below the top mark.

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?

It points the agent at get_my_listing as the source of the photoId and states the required scope listings:write, which is real usage context. However, there is no 'when not to use' guidance — e.g., whether a cover photo can be removed, or whether update_listing/listings edit should be used instead when reordering is the goal.

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

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the description adds real value beyond them: match fields, ranking order, AND-combination of filters, and the validation behavior (an unknown facet value errors and names the valid ones). No pagination or result-shape notes, but an output schema exists.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and search mechanics before the filtering rules and the no-parameter fallback. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical clauses make it slightly compressed for a first read.

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 six-parameter, fully-optional read tool with 100% schema coverage, output schema, and complete annotations, the description covers the pieces an agent cannot infer: match fields, ranking, filter conjunction, invalid-value errors, and the empty-argument behavior.

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 each filter's format is already documented in the schema. The description adds only the combination rule (a product must match all supplied facets) and the error-on-invalid-value behavior; it adds no new per-parameter meaning beyond that 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search MakerRadar's directory of launched products") plus the matching semantics (name and tagline) and the ranking rule (all-time upvotes). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_product (single record), compare_products, or list_categories.

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?

Gives usable context: narrow by facets, combine them for AND semantics, or omit everything to get the most-upvoted list. It does not explicitly say when to prefer a sibling instead — notably top_products, which plausibly overlaps with the no-filter default it describes.

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

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), so the description's main contribution is the auth requirement 'Needs listings:write', which is real operational context an agent needs before calling. It doesn't mention what happens to the previously set cover, which is the one behavioral gap.

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 short sentences: the action and scope first, then the permission requirement. No filler, no restated title, nothing that could be cut without losing 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?

For a two-parameter mutation with an output schema present, the definition covers what the tool does, the data source for the id, and the required scope. The only shortfall is not saying what happens to the prior cover or whether the listing must be in a certain state.

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 both parameter descriptions already explain productId and photoId and their provenance. The description repeats the get_my_listing sourcing hint without adding format or validation detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — making a listing photo the cover its page leads with — and implicitly contrasts with add_listing_image and remove_listing_photo by scoping the action to 'cover' selection. An agent can tell exactly which sibling this is versus the other photo tools.

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?

Gives clear context for invocation by naming the prerequisite data source (photo id from get_my_listing) and the required permission (listings:write). It doesn't state explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use, but the sibling set has little overlap with this narrow action.

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

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing hard limits (max 6 items, question 8–140 chars, answer 2–600), the moderation rule that link-containing or mostly rewritten answers on live listings wait for review, and the required write scope. The 'empty list removes them' note is the kind of consequence an agent needs before invoking a replace operation.

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?

Three compact sentences ordered by importance: what it does, the input constraints and removal case, then the moderation and permission caveats. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation; the description instead spends its budget on the constraints, moderation delay, and auth that an agent cannot infer from structured fields. Complete for a replace-style mutation with only two parameters.

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, but the description adds minimum lengths (8 for questions, 2 for answers) that the schema only expresses as maxLength, plus the cardinality cap of 6 and the empty-list semantics. Only the productId parameter goes unelaborated, which is trivial.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Replace a listing's quick answers') and immediately defines the concept in parentheses as buyer questions answered by the maker, which separates it from the broad update_listing sibling.

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?

Establishes the replacement semantics ('the full list replaces the old one') and the removal path ('An empty list removes them'), plus the listings:write prerequisite. It does not explicitly contrast with update_listing or say when a maker should prefer this over editing the listing generally, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: nothing is charged until the person pays, a link is emailed to them, the spot is held for a week, and the call requires the billing:checkout scope. The 'holds a week's spot' line also hints at a persistent side effect, consistent with readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false.

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?

Roughly four dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and its source. Every clause carries information, though the em-dash parentheticals make it slightly harder to scan than a plain enumeration.

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?

Covers the mutation's side effects, authorization scope, human handoff, and validity window; an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly and safely is missing.

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 every parameter is already documented, including the week/weeks pairing and the 4-week maximum. The description only restates the provenance of 'item' (from get_pricing) and adds the listing-approval precondition; it says nothing extra about week, weeks or coupon semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start a checkout') plus the actor scope ('for the person you act for'), and ties the input to a named sibling ('an item from get_pricing'). An agent can distinguish this from get_pricing, get_launch_options or choose_launch without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says to source the item from get_pricing and that a placement requires the listing to be approved first, which are real preconditions. It also defines the agent's role ('you never pay'), routing the output to the human. It stops short of naming alternatives for the same goal, but the precondition chain covers the main decision.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is already known; the description adds the required 'listings:write' scope and the consequence ('A proven owner can't have the listing taken over'). It does not say whether calling twice issues a second token or invalidates the first, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Three compact sentences: action, workflow/next step, safety consequence, permission requirement. No filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the conditional guidance.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive mutation with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the essentials: permission scope, what is returned, and the required follow-up call. The remaining gap is token lifetime and re-invocation behavior.

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 the schema already lists dns_txt, html_file and meta_tag, so the description's repetition of the same three values adds little. The only extra signal is that the chosen method determines where the token must be placed, which is a return-value hint rather than parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start proving the person controls a listing's website') and names the three methods plus what comes back ('a token and exactly where to put it'). It also implicitly separates itself from the sibling verify_ownership, which it names as the follow-up step.

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?

Gives an explicit conditional workflow: 'If you can deploy the site or edit its DNS, place it, then call verify_ownership.' That tells the agent both the precondition and the next tool. It stops short of saying what to do when the caller cannot deploy or edit DNS, so the alternative path is left to inference.

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

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the resulting state (a draft), that fields not supplied are auto-filled from the site, that duplicate sites return as 'listed' rather than erroring, and the required scope listings:write. That is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint alone.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the follow-up tools and permission requirement at the end. Slightly run-on with the 'Then get_my_listing, and choose_launch' clause, but every sentence carries 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?

Covers the mutation, its draft outcome, the duplicate case, required auth scope and the next step, and an output schema exists so return-shape detail is unnecessary. The only gap is no hint about what happens if the ownership/verification path is not satisfied before review.

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, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: only the website is genuinely needed and name/tagline/description are optional because the rest is populated from the site. It does not restate the length constraints, which is fine since the schema carries them.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (submit a product as a draft listing on MakerRadar) plus ownership semantics ('owned by the person you act for'), which plainly separates it from read-side siblings like get_my_listing or list_my_listings.

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?

Gives a clear workflow context – call this first, then get_my_listing, then choose_launch to send for review – and tells the agent what happens when the site is already listed. It stops short of naming when to prefer draft_listing or update_listing instead.

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

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

The annotations already establish a safe, idempotent, closed-world read. Beyond that, the description discloses two behavioral facts the annotations do not: results are ordered by upvote count and the board is capped at a Top 100 set. It does not describe pagination or whether the underlying set can shift over time, but the ranking and cap disclosures are meaningful additions.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the discriminating detail ('most-upvoted', 'all time'), with the parenthetical board name as a compact clarifier. There is no filler wording and nothing that repeats the tool name verbatim.

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?

This is a simple read tool with one optional, fully documented parameter and an output schema that carries the return shape. The description adequately covers what is returned and how it is ordered. The only minor gap is the absence of any note on whether results are stable or how the Top 100 is recomputed.

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 the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema with its default of 20 and maximum of 100. The description adds no syntax, range, or interaction detail beyond that, so the schema is doing all the work. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 gives a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('most-upvoted products on MakerRadar'), and an explicit ranking scope ('of all time'). The phrase 'Top 100 board' further pins down what is returned. It stops short of naming a sibling tool, so an agent must infer the contrast with list_current_launches or search_products from the 'all time' phrase alone.

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 'of all time' qualifier implicitly signals when to use this over a recency-based listing, and 'most-upvoted' implies what the caller gets. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no named alternative such as search_products for filtered lookups. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the review gate (new name, category, video, link or a rewrite on a live listing waits for review while drafts change at once), the required scope (listings:write), and per-field clearing behavior — none of which the readOnly/destructive/idempotent hints convey. It also notes the tool is non-idempotent in effect for live listings because of the moderation queue.

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 verb and the field list, then the clearing rule, then slug sourcing, then the review caveat — a sensible priority order in roughly 100 words. The long comma-separated field enumeration partly duplicates the schema and could be trimmed.

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 15-parameter mutation with an output schema and annotations already present, the description covers the remaining gaps an agent needs: auth scope, partial-update and clearing semantics, slug provenance, video host validation, and the draft-vs-live review behavior.

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?

With 93% schema coverage the schema already carries field-level detail, but the description adds cross-cutting meaning the schema does not: which fields are slug-based, that lists are replaced rather than appended, that null/empty clears, and the constraint that links are one per kind. It does not add much on pricingModel or priceFrom beyond the schema.

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 and resource ("Change any of a listing's details") and enumerates the exact editable fields, so an agent can immediately separate this from draft_listing, submit_listing, or set_listing_cover.

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?

"Send only what changes; null or an empty list clears a field" gives explicit partial-update semantics, and "slugs from get_listing_options" routes the agent to the sibling that supplies valid slugs. It stops short of stating when to prefer draft_listing over editing a live listing, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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

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

Annotations only declare the write/non-destructive/non-idempotent shape; the description adds two things they don't cover: the required listings:write scope and the external DNS propagation lag that can cause transient failures. It does not describe what happens when the token is missing, leaving the failure path implicit.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action and outcome, the timing caveat, and the permission requirement. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the action, precondition, auth scope, and timing caveat. The only gap is the failure behavior when the token is absent, which the output schema may partially address.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single productId parameter is already documented as the listing's id, so the description adds nothing about parameters. This meets the baseline for a fully-covered schema rather than exceeding it.

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?

States a specific verb and outcome: it checks that the token from start_ownership_check is present and, if so, marks the person as the listing's verified owner. The dependency on start_ownership_check makes the division of labor with that sibling clear, though it never names alternatives explicitly.

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 establishes sequencing (this tool runs after start_ownership_check) and adds practical timing guidance that DNS propagation can take a few minutes before verification will succeed. It stops short of stating what to do on failure or how often to retry.

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