Marketplace visibility

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

The annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the broad topic, such as whether it returns cached data, how freshness works, or what the response shape may be. No contradiction exists, but the description contributes little beyond annotations.

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 short sentence fragment with no filler, and it is front-loaded. It is concise, though its terseness borders on under-specification rather than helpful brevity.

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 simple read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It does not clarify the return semantics or differentiate the tool from adjacent business-related siblings, but the structured fields cover safety and parameter details.

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?

There is only one parameter, and its schema description ('Skip the local cache') fully documents it at 100% coverage. The description does not mention the fresh/cache parameter, but the schema already carries that meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the domain: marketplace visibility and bookability. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, and it does not clarify whether the tool returns a boolean status, a listing record, or eligibility details. It is understandable but not sharply actionable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool, when not to call it, or which sibling tools to use instead. Related siblings such as business_profile, business_features, and business_booking_rules are not mentioned, leaving routing entirely to inference.

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