market_set

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

The tool has no annotations, so the description bears full burden. It states it 'set[s]' and 'return[s]' the profile, but does not disclose persistence, authorization needs, side effects on other tools, or whether the change is temporary or permanent.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the essential information without any redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 the tool's simplicity (one string parameter, clear set operation, and an output schema that likely returns the profile), the description is complete. It covers the purpose, the parameter, and the return behavior adequately.

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 input schema provides only a parameter name with zero description coverage. The description adds substantial meaning by giving examples ('fr', 'us') and specifying the intention (active market profile). This compensates well for the schema's lack of detail.

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 clearly states the action ('set'), the resource ('active market profile'), and provides concrete examples ('fr', 'us'). It contrasts well with siblings like 'market_get' (get current) and 'market_available' (list available), making purpose unambiguous.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. Usage is implied by the action 'set', but there is no guidance on prerequisites, when to prefer this over market_get, or context for setting the market profile.

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