marketplace_get_installation_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds that the response bundles status, payments, and a transition log, which is useful given there is no output schema, but it does not cover auth/ownership failure behavior or the shape of the returned data.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier 'at one location' lands cleanly. It is efficient, though one more clause on the read semantics would have earned full marks.

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?

With no output schema, the description does mention the returned elements, which is helpful, but it leaves two of three parameters undocumented and says nothing about failure modes or data format, leaving an agent short of fully armed for this call.

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 only 33%: partner_id is documented as the ownership-check account ID, but application_id and location_id have no description. The tool description adds no meaning for any parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Get') and the concrete payload (status, payments, status-transition log) scoped to an owned application at one location, which clearly separates it from siblings like list_installations or activate_installation. It is clear but does not explicitly name a sibling alternative the agent should consider.

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?

There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative. The agent must infer that this is the read path for a single installation's state versus activate_installation, uninstall, or list_installations.

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