market_preferences

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state safety (e.g., read-only), authentication needs, or data freshness. It also does not disclose if the output is real-time or cached.

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 sentence conveying essential information without waste. However, it could be slightly improved by starting with a verb (e.g., 'Get') for clarity.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description is the sole source of information. It covers key outputs but omits details like return format (list vs. object) and whether there are additional preference fields. More completeness would help the agent.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema provides no information. The description adds meaning by specifying the output content (favorite stores, total spent), which is valuable beyond the empty schema.

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 returns user preferences (favorite stores, total spent) derived from purchase history. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve', the meaning is evident and distinguishes it from siblings like market_favorites (likely item-level) and market_scores (likely scoring).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as market_favorites or market_scores. The description gives no context about appropriate usage scenarios or exclusions.

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