get-markets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully names the returned facets (regions, currencies, status, web presence), which is real added context. However, saying 'Get all markets' while the schema defaults to 25 and caps at 50 is mildly misleading about whether the result is complete, and there is no note on pagination or auth.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the returned fields are listed compactly. Slight cost is that the 'all' qualifier is the only place where the pagination nuance could have been clarified but wasn't.

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 simple read-only list with no output schema and full param documentation, describing the returned fields is the right level of detail. The remaining gap is that an agent cannot tell from the description whether a single call returns every market or only a page.

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 the single 'first' parameter (default 25, max 50) is already fully documented. The description adds nothing beyond that, which meets the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Get all markets') plus the concrete payload (regions, currencies, status, web presence configuration). No sibling tool covers markets, so no differentiation is needed, though the 'all' wording is at odds with the default-25 pagination.

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 read-only list nature is implied and no sibling competes for this purpose, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use framing or guidance on how many markets to request via 'first'.

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