marketplace_diagnostics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the probe is 'lightweight' and an 'empty search,' giving insight into its non-intrusive nature. It also clarifies it 'reports which ones are reachable,' indicating read-only behavior. Minor omissions include output format details, but it is sufficient for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value without 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 no parameters or output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's function and use case. It explains the mechanism (empty search) and purpose (debugging downloads). It does not elaborate on output format, but this is acceptable for a simple diagnostic tool with no structured output schema.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100% (no parameters to describe). Per guidelines, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter info, remaining correct and clear.

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 clearly states 'Run connectivity checks against all configured marketplaces' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on marketplace reachability via a lightweight probe, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 indicates usage context with 'Useful for debugging download failures,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, which would elevate it to a 5.

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