rank_markets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. Description adds the return structure, the fact it ranks across 300+ markets, and constraints like limit 1-50 and region options. Provides concrete behavioral context beyond 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?

Description is front-loaded with the key purpose and example, then lists parameters and return format, then anti-patterns. It's slightly verbose but well-structured and every part adds clarity. The example is helpful but could be separated into a dedicated field if allowed.

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 tool's complexity, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description fully covers all aspects: purpose, when to use, parameter details with examples, return structure, and when not to use. No 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds significant value by listing allowed values for criteria and region, providing a concrete example (min_capacity_mw=100), and explaining the meaning of min_capacity_mw as a filter floor. This goes well beyond the schema's simple type descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'top N markets for X' as a single ranked list, distinguishing it from get_market_intel. Provides an explicit example query demonstrating usage.

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 tells when to use (top N markets) and when not to use (deep read on one market -> get_market_intel; scoring lat/lon -> analyze_site). Also positions it as an alternative to multiple get_market_intel calls.

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