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 does so well: one logical GET, no auto-fetch of continuation pages, local truncation at 100 rows / 256 KiB with truncation reported in text and metadata, oversized records refused without partial fields, and counts passed through without inference. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements beyond the passing mention of an 'authorized player-specific' read.

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?

It is a dense run-on of measured observations with a missing period ('Makes one logical GET request Does not auto-fetch continuation pages'). The purpose is buried under experimental telemetry, and the most decision-relevant facts (truncation limits) sit at the end rather than being front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations and two undocumented params, the description covers behavior and limits thoroughly but never describes the shape of a returned 'asset summary' (fields beyond numOwned) or permission requirements. It is operationally detailed but leaves the response contract underspecified.

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 documents 'assets' as comma-separated asset names with observed accepted values (PACKS, LAND, DEEDS) and row counts, which is genuinely additive, but the 'player' parameter is only implied by the phrase 'player-specific PACKS read' and never explicitly described.

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 'Read public market asset summaries' gives a verb and a resource, but 'market asset summaries' is vague about what is actually returned, and nothing distinguishes it from the many market siblings (vapi_market_asset_metadata, vapi_market_player_listings, market_for_sale_grouped). The remaining sentences are operational telemetry rather than purpose clarification.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. It explains mechanics (comma-separated assets, filters forwarded as supplied, no auto-pagination) but never names a sibling or a condition that selects this endpoint over the other market read tools.

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