marketplace_notify_chat_message

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

Annotations already declare it is not read-only, is open-world and non-idempotent. The description usefully adds that it may trigger side effects (notifications/leads) dependent on location settings, which goes beyond the annotations, but it does not explain the plan/apply distinction or any permission requirements.

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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. Appropriately sized, though it is arguably too terse given the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 7 required parameters, a plan/apply mode, no output schema, and only 14% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits mode semantics, parameter meaning, and the mechanics of the notification/lead side effects, leaving an agent without enough 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 description coverage is only 14% across 7 required parameters, so the schema is largely silent. The description compensates for none of this: it never mentions mode, partner_id, application_id, phone_from, message, or name, only vaguely alluding to 'location settings'. The undocumented parameters remain unexplained.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Signal a new chat message') and states the effect (highlights the chat frame, may create notifications/leads). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from any sibling tool.

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 guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites. The presence of a plan/apply mode parameter but no explanation of when to use which mode leaves usage entirely to inference.

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