market_active_rentals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that pagination selectors are non-functional, that it makes one logical GET request, does not auto-fetch continuation pages, enforces local limits of 100 rows and 256 KiB, reports truncation, and refuses oversized records. This is exceptional transparency about actual measured behavior.

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 dense but every sentence carries information: scope, pagination caveat, request behavior, limits, and truncation handling. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. It could be slightly more concise, but the density is justified given the behavioral caveats.

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 read-only query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool does, how to scope it, what pagination behavior to expect, and what local limits apply. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and interpret results. The only minor gap is not describing the exact response shape, but the truncation and refusal behavior compensates.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the scoping parameters (owner, renter, card_detail_id) and explicitly warns that limit/take bound leading rows while offset/skip are non-functional. It also notes that other declared filters are forwarded as supplied without implied effectiveness. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail every parameter's format.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read current card rentals scoped by owner, renter or card_detail_id.' This clearly distinguishes it from rental history tools and other market tools. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly naming a sibling alternative, but the scope is clear.

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 provides clear context: it reads current rentals, not complete history, and notes that pagination selectors are not working. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for history, but the 'not complete rental history' exclusion helps an agent decide when not to use it. Slightly more explicit routing to siblings would push this to 5.

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