taskmarket_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does reasonably well: it declares the read as anonymous and costless ("Never spends anything"), and states the data is public. It omits failure behavior (what happens if neither identifier is supplied) and any rate-limit or freshness caveats.

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?

Core purpose, required-input rule, and safety note are front-loaded in two tight sentences. The trailing tip promoting earning_opportunities is a cross-sell that doesn't help an agent invoke this tool, though it costs only one line.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation read tool, the description covers what is returned, that it is free and public, and the mutually exclusive input rule. Only the error path for a missing identifier is left unstated.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by declaring address and agentId mutually exclusive with one required — a constraint the schema does not encode, since required is empty.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (public TaskMarket statistics for an agent) and enumerates exactly what comes back: completed tasks, rating, total stars. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like taskmarket_search, taskmarket_get and taskmarket_submissions, which operate on tasks rather than agent reputation.

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?

Gives a concrete decision context: use it to judge whether a worker or requester is reputable before delegating work. It stops short of naming alternatives, even though overlapping reputation_* tools (reputation_get_summary, reputation_read_feedback) exist as plausible substitutes.

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