marketplace_validate_lifecycle_callback

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open world), so the bar is lower. The description does add one genuine behavioral fact – the token is checked 'without revealing it' – but omits what happens on a failed validation, whether errors leak token material, and what the normalized output looks like.

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 verb, the resource, and the token constraint are all packed efficiently. It is a little dense and could have spent one more clause on the return behavior without bloat.

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 whose input is a discriminated union of two payload shapes and which has no output schema, the description is only partly sufficient: purpose and event types are covered, but return values, error semantics, and the meaning of partner_id are absent. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and largely does not. It names the three event kinds (uninstall/freeze/payment), which maps to the payload enum, but says nothing about partner_id or the required fields of the two payload shapes, leaving most of the contract 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 pairs a specific compound verb ('validate and normalize') with a clearly bounded resource ('uninstall/freeze/payment callback payload'), so the agent can tell it apart from the CRUD/list siblings. It stops short of clarifying what the normalized result is or how it is returned, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is obviously meant to be invoked when a marketplace lifecycle callback arrives, but there is no explicit statement of when to call it, what precondition (a real incoming callback) is required, or what alternative to use instead. Implied-only guidance lands at 3.

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