get_use_cases

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

No annotations are provided, but this is a zero-parameter lookup with no mutation surface, so the disclosure burden is low. The description conveys what it returns (jobs and the capabilities each needs) but says nothing about the result's structure or size, so it is adequate but thin.

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 with zero filler; the content description is front-loaded and the usage hint follows. Every clause 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 parameterless, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent can expect to get back well enough to decide to call it. A brief hint about the return shape would close the remaining gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so by rule the baseline is 4. There is no parameter syntax for the description to clarify, and none is needed.

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 gives a specific content type: common business jobs ('use cases') and the capabilities each requires. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_capabilities because it maps goals to capability sets rather than listing capabilities themselves. No explicit sibling reference, but the resource is clear.

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?

It provides a concrete usage scenario ('turning "I am building a marketplace" into the right set of calls'), which implies when to reach for it. However, it names no alternatives or exclusions, and does not say when NOT to use it versus get_capabilities or get_supported_countries, so guidance remains inferred rather than directive.

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