get_agent_marketplace_installation

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

There are no annotations, so the description itself must imply safety. The verb 'Get' indicates a read-only retrieval with no destructive side effects, and 'for the selected company' adds a scoping condition. However, it does not disclose error behavior, authentication requirements, or what happens when the installation does not exist, though for a simple get operation this is a moderate gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word contributes to identifying the action, resource, and scope, which is appropriate for a simple one-parameter get operation.

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 low-complexity get-by-id tool, the description is minimally sufficient, especially since an output schema exists and the single parameter is self-naming. However, it lacks any pointer to the related list tool for discovering installation IDs and gives no usage context, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain installation_id at all. While the parameter name and title are self-evident, the description does not clarify where the ID comes from, what it represents beyond the tool name, or how it relates to the selected company. With zero schema coverage, the description should compensate and does not.

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 a specific action ('Get'), a specific resource ('marketplace installation'), and a scope ('for the selected company'). It also differentiates from the sibling list_agent_marketplace_installations by saying 'one' rather than 'list', and differentiates from get_agent_marketplace_listing by naming 'installation' rather than 'listing'.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that list_agent_marketplace_installations should be used to retrieve all installations or to find installation IDs, nor does it provide any exclusions or preconditions.

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