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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the result is 'complete structured marketplace metadata' and enumerates the covered dimensions, which is consistent with the annotations and gives useful context about the tool's scope. It does not discuss edge cases like missing identifiers, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The list of metadata categories is long but each item adds useful information about what the tool returns. It earns a 4 rather than a 5 because the enumeration could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 output schema covers return shape and annotations cover safety. The main gap is invocation semantics: with no required parameters, the description should clarify that exactly one of slug or resource_id is expected and what happens otherwise. This is a real gap for correct invocation.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It does map slug and resource_id to 'by slug or id', but it leaves ambiguity about whether one is required, what happens if both are supplied, and value formats. This is only partial compensation for the schema's silence.

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 ('Return') and identifies the resource ('complete structured marketplace metadata') and the lookup modes ('by slug or id'). It also enumerates the metadata categories, making the tool's scope concrete. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search_resources or get_installation, 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?

The description implies the tool is for retrieving full metadata for a known resource, but it never states when to prefer it over siblings such as get_installation or search_resources, and gives no exclusions or alternative conditions. Usage context is present but only by implication.

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