marketplace_overview

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. It states this is an 'Übersicht' (overview), which implies a read-only, informational operation. However, it doesn't disclose what data is returned, whether it reflects real-time state, or what 'Basisfunktionen' (basic functions) refers to concretely. With an output schema present, some burden is offloaded, but the description adds minimal behavioral detail.

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?

A single short sentence in German - highly concise with minimal waste. It communicates the core purpose efficiently. However, it's slightly under-specified rather than optimally concise; more would be welcome. That said, for a zero-parameter overview tool, this level of brevity is acceptable.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter tool with an output schema available, which lowers the burden on the description. The overview concept is straightforward, and the output schema presumably defines return structure. However, given the breadth of sibling tools (16 siblings covering search, preview, access, publishing, lineage), 'overview' is ambiguous - it could be a landing page, a metrics dashboard, or a navigation index. Slightly more specificity about what the overview covers would improve completeness.

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 0 parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by definition (nothing to document). Per the rubric, 0 params establishes a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-level information, but none is needed. A baseline 4 is appropriate here.

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 states the tool provides an overview of the internal data marketplace and its basic functions ('Übersicht über den internen Data Marketplace und seine Basisfunktionen'). This is a clear purpose but vague - it doesn't specify what the overview contains or how it differs from sibling tools like search_data_products or get_data_product. The verb+resource is identifiable but the scope is undefined.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. Given the siblings include search_data_products, get_data_product, and other marketplace tools, the description doesn't clarify whether this is an entry point, an index, or a summary. Usage context is implied at best (used to get a general overview) but no exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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