vapi_market_player_all_listings

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses single GET request, no auto-pagination, local limits (100 rows, 256 KiB), truncation reported in text and metadata, oversized records refused without partial fields, and that forwarded filters may not be effective. These are specific behavioral traits beyond basic schema, showing high transparency.

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 dense paragraph with many clauses, mixing purpose with caveats. It is not front-loaded effectively; the main action is stated first but the rest reads as a run-on of qualifications. While no sentence is wasted, the structure lacks clear separation between the purpose and behavioral notes, making it less scannable.

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 simple read tool with one parameter, the description covers key limitations (truncation, refusal, no pagination) and hints at response content. It lacks an output schema, but the description itself describes what to expect (asset types). It could be more explicit about the 'player' parameter format and any authentication requirements, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly and interpret truncation.

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 sole parameter 'player' has zero schema description coverage (0%), and the description adds no semantic meaning. It only says required inputs reflect tool policy, without explaining what the player value should be (e.g., account ID, format, or example). The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 it reads account listing items across assets and lists the observed asset types (PACKS, CONSUMABLES, SKINS, MUSIC). It distinguishes from the broader 'vapi_market_player' siblings by noting it is locally bounded and may not be complete for every account. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, leaving some ambiguity about when this is distinct from vapi_market_player_listings.

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 behavioral caveats (local truncation, no pagination) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No sibling references or 'if you need X, use Y' guidance exists. The only hint is that the tool is locally bounded, implying it is for quick reads, but this is not framed as usage guidance.

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