marketplace_list_entity_frames

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: declarations are only copied to a location during a later application installation, which tells the agent these frames are inert definitions rather than active runtime entities.

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, front-loaded sentences with no padding; the purpose comes first and the lifecycle caveat second. The phrase 'a location' is slightly vague but does not harm brevity.

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 carries the burden of explaining what is returned, and it only says 'definitions' without indicating the shape of an entity frame. Combined with the undocumented application_id, the definition is adequate but leaves real gaps for an agent trying to call it correctly.

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 50%: partner_id is documented as the developer account used for caller ownership checks, but application_id has no description anywhere. The tool description says nothing about either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the schema 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (declared employee/client/visit iframe definitions) scoped to an application. It implicitly separates 'declared' frames from the installed copies handled by siblings like marketplace_install_sidebar_frame and marketplace_replace_entity_frames, but never names those siblings or states the distinction explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no reference to the closely related replace_entity_frames or install_sidebar_frame tools. The lifecycle sentence hints that declarations exist before installation, but an agent is left to infer whether this is the read-side counterpart to replace_entity_frames.

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