pristine_marketplace_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does add useful behavioral context: the storefront URL is fixed server-side and it returns normalized static page detail for one handle. This goes beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose anything about error behavior, rate limits, or confirm the read-only nature beyond the verb 'Get', leaving some transparency gaps.

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 compact: three sentences that front-load the core purpose, then provide the fixed URL context, then a concrete example list. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 a single required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the input (handle), provides known valid values, and clarifies server-side behavior. It could be more explicit about what 'normalized static page detail' contains or say what happens with invalid handles, but for the tool's simplicity it is mostly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% but the schema description is generic ('Page handle'). The description adds meaningful semantic value by enumerating concrete valid handles ('nfl', 'mlb', 'nba', 'nhl', 'nascar'), which helps an agent understand the expected format and typical uses. This exceeds the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource: a Pristine Marketplace static page for a given handle, returning normalized static page detail. It also gives specific examples of valid handles (nfl, mlb, etc.), which helps identify the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself against the sibling tool 'pristine_marketplace_pages' or other marketplace tools, so it lacks the explicit sibling differentiation needed for 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?

Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit. The description implies that if you have a page handle, especially one of the listed 'Shop by Sport' handles, you should use this tool. But it does not state when to use an alternative (e.g., pristine_marketplace_pages for multiple pages) or provide any exclusion criteria. The example handles offer some context, but no clear when/when-not guidance.

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