Market Overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It lists the informational categories the tool returns (prices, availability, durations, etc.), which gives some insight into its scope. However, it omits critical behaviors such as whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires authentication, potential rate limits, response size, or performance implications. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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, clear sentence with a list of components and a brief usage note. It is concise and front-loaded with the key purpose. While it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separated into purpose and output details), it contains no filler and efficiently conveys the tool's function.

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?

The description explains the content of the output but not its format or field names, which is significant since no output schema exists. The presence of several sibling tools (e.g., get_prices, get_available_resources, get_orders) creates a need for differentiation, but the description does not specify how this overview relates to those individual queries. It is somewhat complete but lacks depth in clarifying boundaries and return structure.

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 the schema provides no parameter details. In such cases, the baseline is 4, and the description adds value by describing the output content ('prices, availability, allowed durations...'). The description contributes meaning beyond the schema by contextualizing what the overview includes, which helps an agent interpret the results.

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 it provides a comprehensive market overview covering prices, availability, allowed durations, order constraints, and transaction types. It explicitly defines the resource ('market overview') and the verb ('get'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_prices or get_available_resources, which focus on specific subsets. The added line 'Useful for agents to understand what they can purchase' clarifies the intended use case.

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 only suggests general applicability ('useful for agents to understand what they can purchase'), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., get_prices, get_available_resources, get_orders). It does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or scenarios where this tool is preferred or should be avoided. This absence makes it harder for an agent to decide which tool to invoke.

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