marketplace_get_installer_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context—nothing about rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens during the call. It is consistent with the annotations but discloses no additional traits. The description adds minimal value beyond the structured metadata, so a score of 2 is appropriate.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise in terms of word count, but it sacrifices content for brevity. It is underspecified—essentially a title rather than a useful description. While there is no wasted wording, the lack of information makes it an ineffective structure. It achieves conciseness at the expense of clarity, meriting a middle score.

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?

There is no output schema and no explanation of what 'installer details' are or what the response contains. The description is too vague to tell an agent what the tool returns. With only a single parameter and no return documentation, the description fails to provide adequate context for correct invocation and interpretation of results. This is a significant gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 schema already provides a full description for the single parameter 'appId' ('ID of the app to get installer details'), giving 100% coverage. The description does not add any further meaning—no format, constraints, examples, or caveats beyond what is in the schema. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description provides no bonus. Thus, a score of 3 is correct.

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 'Get Installer Details' is a verb-plus-resource restatement of the tool name, but it does not explain what 'installer details' actually are or what the resource encompasses. It adds no elaboration beyond the name and does not differentiate the tool from siblings (e.g., marketplace_get_charges, marketplace_get_specific_charge). This is essentially a tautology—repeating the title without clarifying the output or scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no reference to related marketplace tools or conditions that would lead an agent to choose this one over others. The agent is left with no decision-making information.

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