FleetQ

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

Lists mutating actions (publish, install, review) alongside read operations but fails to disclose side effects, idempotency, or safety characteristics. With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure yet omits critical details like what 'install' actually creates or whether 'publish' requires specific permissions.

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?

Extremely terse single-sentence structure with action summaries parenthetically attached. While efficient, the density sacrifices clarity on conditional requirements (e.g., rating only for review action) that are crucial for correct invocation.

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 complex multi-action tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain that required parameters are conditional on the action (e.g., 'rating' only for 'review'), does not describe return values, and omits workflow logic (e.g., browse → install sequences). The agent cannot determine what 'install' returns or creates.

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 92%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description attempts to map actions to parameters (e.g., 'browse (query, category)'), but these labels do not perfectly align with actual parameter names ('type' serves as category, no explicit 'query' exists), creating slight confusion without adding substantial semantic value beyond the well-documented 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?

Clearly identifies the resource (marketplace listings) and enumerates six specific actions (browse, publish, install, review, categories, analytics) with some parameter hints. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling entity-management tools like agent_manage or skill_manage, which could confuse the agent about whether to use this for marketplace operations vs. direct entity editing.

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?

Provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling management tools (agent_manage, skill_manage, etc.) or when to choose specific actions. The parenthetical parameter hints do not constitute usage guidance—they are merely abbreviated signatures.

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