submit_to_marketplace

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-readonly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: Tier-1 calls are dry-runs unless LISTING_API_KEY is configured, staging requires a verified local artifact path with a clean SHA-256, and there is a 5 scans/person/day limit. This is useful conditional behavior not present in the annotations, though it leaves some ambiguity about what actually gets submitted when the key is configured.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it is a dense single sentence packed with undefined jargon like 'Tier-1 calls', 'staging', and 'Django scan-hash'. It would benefit from clearer separation of purpose, prerequisites, and conditional behavior.

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 an 18-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is underspecified. It omits what the tool returns, how dry-run results are reported, which parameters are actually validated, how idempotency manifests in practice, and how this differs from the sibling validation/registration tools. The behavioral notes are valuable but do not make the tool safely invokable by an agent without significant additional 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?

Schema description coverage is only 6%, so the description must compensate for the 18 undocumented parameters, but it does not. It adds helpful meaning only to verification_artifact and the VirusTotal/scan requirement, while required parameters like symbol, strategy_type, timeframe, oos_sharpe, oos_trades, and max_drawdown_pct are completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Validate a strategy for marketplace readiness.' This clearly indicates the tool's marketplace-focused validation purpose. However, the tool name says 'submit' while the description centers on validation and dry-run behavior, and siblings like validate_strategy and validate_strategy_metrics exist without any differentiation, so it is clear but not fully disambiguating.

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 communicates when dry-run vs. staging applies and lists prerequisites such as LISTING_API_KEY and a VirusTotal-clean artifact. This implies usage context but never explicitly tells an agent when to choose this tool over related siblings like validate_strategy, register_strategy, or get_marketplace_listings. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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