list_marketplace_offers

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fails to disclose whether this is read-only (though implied by 'List'), pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, rate limits, or what 'marketplace' means in the context of the loyalty ecosystem. The 'active' qualifier suggests default behavior but doesn't clarify if this is a default filter.

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?

Single sentence of 8 words is appropriately front-loaded with no filler. However, given zero annotations and no output schema, the description is overly terse—additional sentences explaining behavior or return format would earn their place.

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 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the minimum. However, gaps remain: no explanation of how marketplace offers relate to the loyalty token ecosystem (siblings include mint/transfer tokens), no output format details, and the 'active' ambiguity leaves functional scope slightly unclear.

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 has 100% description coverage, establishing baseline 3. The description mentions 'active' which loosely maps to the status parameter, but adds no detail on the limit parameter's usage, valid status enum values, or parameter interactions. Does not compensate for lack of output schema.

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?

Clear verb (List) and resource (token trading offers on marketplace) distinguishes this from loyalty-program siblings. However, stating 'active' in the description is slightly confusing since the status parameter allows filtering by completed/cancelled as well, implying the tool can list non-active offers too.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus list_loyalty_programs or other list tools. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether user needs specific permissions to view marketplace offers) or when to filter by specific statuses.

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