list_software

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so read-only semantics are covered. The description does add one piece of behavior annotations do not cover: 'No token required', which is genuinely useful auth context for an agent deciding whether it can call this before authenticating. It says nothing about pagination, result size, or whether the list is region-filtered.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the resource named first and the auth caveat trailing. The '(software/list)' parenthetical is endpoint trivia of dubious value to an agent, which is the only real slack in otherwise tight phrasing.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns conceptually (available software) and its auth posture. It stops short of explaining how location and instance_id combine to filter results or what happens when both are omitted, leaving a meaningful gap for a listing endpoint.

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 both parameters (location with its enum-like country list, instance_id referencing list_presets) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource precisely (marketplace apps available for auto-install) and implicitly the verb via the tool name 'list', so it is distinguishable from siblings like list_os or list_presets. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, but the scope qualifier 'available for auto-install' does the disambiguating work well.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus list_presets, list_os, list_traffic_plans, or the other catalog-listing siblings. The only contextual hint is the parenthetical endpoint and 'No token required', which tells the agent about auth but not selection conditions.

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