list_agent_marketplace_listings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the safety burden and explicitly states this is a read with no install/activate/approve side effects. It also frames the data as 'authoritative persisted' listings, setting expectations about the nature of the results. It omits pagination and ordering details, but the core behavioral stance is clear.

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 covering purpose, downstream usage, and safety, with no filler. The key qualifier 'authoritative persisted' is front-loaded, and each sentence 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?

The description is sufficient for a basic no-argument invocation, and the presence of an output schema covers return-shape expectations. However, all six optional parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, and there is no mention of filtering or pagination behavior. For a list tool with cursor, limit, domain, and kind, this is a meaningful gap.

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 schema has six parameters and 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain kind, domain, query, cursor, include_inputs, or limit. The only parameter-related guidance is about returned UUIDs, which are outputs, not inputs. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List authoritative persisted listings and lifecycle UUIDs,' which clearly identifies the tool's job. The qualifier 'authoritative persisted' helps distinguish it from search or installation tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling 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?

The description gives a concrete downstream workflow: 'Use the returned UUID listing_id and revision_id with install and pin tools.' It also clarifies this is a read operation that 'does not install, activate, or approve anything,' signaling when to reach for this tool versus action-oriented siblings.

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