vapi_market_landing

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: local 100-row/256 KiB truncation, truncation reported in text and metadata, refusal of oversized records, no continuation-page auto-fetch, and pass-through counts without inference. It also clarifies it makes one logical GET. This is unusually detailed behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the purpose statement, but it is dense and somewhat redundant: unfiltered truncation is stated twice ('not a complete inventory' and later 'locally limited to 100 rows and 256 KiB'). Phrases like 'required inputs reflect tool policy as well as measured upstream requirements' are cryptic rather than concise.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return behavior; it does provide row counts, numOwned, and truncation metadata examples, but it never fully defines the summary fields or the response shape. The player-specific authorization caveat and 'required inputs' policy statement are too vague to make the tool fully self-contained.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that assets accepts comma-separated names and gives concrete row-count examples, and it implies player-specific reads surface numOwned. However, the `player` parameter's exact role and authorization requirement are only indirectly described, leaving a real 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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Read public market asset summaries.' Examples like 'PACKS and PACKS,LAND selected 15 and 18 rows' add concreteness. However, the description never distinguishes this from sibling tools such as vapi_market_asset_metadata or vapi_market_estimated_price.

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 when-to-use guidance or references to alternatives; it never says 'use this when...' or 'use X instead for...'. The truncation caveats imply that filtering by assets is safer, but the agent is left to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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