market_preview_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important operational context beyond that: the preview is offline, it is governed, and it never authorizes execution. It does not describe response/caching behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden here. No contradiction.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the most important boundary, 'never authorizes execution', is placed immediately after the purpose. Every word 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?

For a tool with a nested request schema and no output schema, the description covers the main semantic boundary but not enough useful context. It calls the result a preview, but does not explain what the preview contains, what the agent should expect in the response, or where this fits among the sibling tools.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. The only parameter reference is essentially a repetition of the schema's own request type name ('Unified Market Evidence Request'), plus the word 'canonical'. It does not add practical meaning about how to construct the request or how execution_mode must be treated.

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 ('Build'), a clear resource ('offline governed preview'), and the source (a canonical Unified Market Evidence Request). It also explicitly states that a preview never authorizes execution, which distinguishes it from any execution-oriented sibling and from the target request itself.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you want a governed preview without execution. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings such as market_validate_request or market_fetch_evidence, nor does it name the alternative for actual execution.

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