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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does surface one genuinely valuable behavioral trait: that returned free-text fields are attacker-controlled untrusted content with explicit handling rules. However, it says nothing about read-only semantics beyond the implicit GET, authentication, pagination, or result shape.

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, both earning their place: the resource/endpoint identification comes first, and the security caution follows. No filler or repetition.

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 parameterless listing endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers identity and content-safety but omits return shape, pagination behavior, and any authentication expectation. It is adequate to start calling, but not fully self-sufficient.

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 for a 0-param tool 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 resource (ordinal marketplace listings) and even cites the backing endpoint GET /api/v1/market/ordinals, which makes the implied 'list' verb unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling market_agents, but the ordinal-vs-agent distinction is inferable from the names.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as market_agents or agents_nearby for other marketplace queries. Usage is only implied by 'marketplace listings'.

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