setup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that execution is a background job, that completion requires polling job_status, and that git and uv must be present. It does not discuss permissions, failure modes, or whether an update is destructive to existing state.

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 compact sentences that front-load the action and mechanism, then immediately give the async polling behavior and prerequisites. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the key operational facts: what it installs, the mechanism, that it is asynchronous, how to track completion, and prerequisites. Missing only edge-case behavior such as failure reporting or upgrade side effects.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter detail because none exists.

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 verb (install/update) and resource (MarketMirror engine), with a parenthetical on the mechanism (git clone + uv sync). It is distinguishable from provider_setup and quickstart, though it does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.

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?

Clarifies when the tool applies (install or update) and gives the follow-up behavior: it is a background job, so poll job_status. Prerequisites (git and uv) are stated as a condition for use, but no explicit when-not guidance is given.

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