get_market_intel

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, consistent with description. Description adds behavioral context: returns specific metrics, covers 300+ markets, and explains slug format. Could mention rate limits or pagination but not critical for a simple read query.

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?

Description is concise: defines purpose, provides an example, lists return fields, and distinguishes from alternatives. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given low complexity (no required params, no nested objects), description covers key aspects: when to use, what it returns, and examples. Could detail slug case-sensitivity or error handling, but overall adequate.

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 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. Description primarily explains the 'market' parameter with examples, but omits 'metric', 'period', and 'compare_to'. Partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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?

Description states specific verb ('get market intel'), identifies the resource ('ONE data-center market'), lists concrete data points, and gives an example. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like rank_markets and get_facility.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use when a user asks about ONE data-center market') and when not to use ('Do NOT use to rank multiple markets... or for a single facility') with direct alternatives.

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