Market Intelligence

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing the exact return shape, the possible DCPI verdict values (BUILD/CAUTION/AVOID), and the 300+ market scope. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured: trigger condition, example, parameter clarification, return fields, and anti-usage. It is longer than minimal, and the return-field list is somewhat redundant given the output schema, but every section serves a clear purpose and it remains readable.

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 the rich input schema, annotations, and output schema, the description is complete: it tells when to use it, what it returns, and when not to use it. The only minor ambiguity is that the schema lists no required params, but the description's wording and example make it clear that market is effectively required.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by giving a concrete invocation example, clarifying that market is a slug with examples, and noting that valid slugs come from rank_markets/get_market_dcpi_rank in the schema. It does not deeply elaborate metric/period/compare_to, but the schema already covers those.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'get market intel' for ONE data-center market, and enumerates the data dimensions (vacancy, pricing, pipeline, operators, YoY growth). It also explicitly contrasts with sibling tools rank_markets and get_facility, so an agent cannot confuse it with those.

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?

The description opens with 'Use when a user asks about ONE data-center market' and closes with 'Do NOT use to rank multiple markets (use rank_markets) or for a single facility (use get_facility).' This gives both positive trigger conditions and explicit exclusions with named alternatives.

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