Marketplace Pull

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the default directory resolution (ACP_INBOX then ./spool/executor) and the expected file/header format, but it never says whether pulled *.eml files are consumed, moved, or deleted, nor whether repeat runs are idempotent — a significant omission for a spool-draining 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and source, with the default-resolution detail immediately after. Slightly terse/cryptic terms ('mesh spool', 'X-Marketplace-Kind') are not explained but each sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, the description leaves the side-effect semantics of a consuming operation unspecified (file disposition, idempotency, malformed-message handling), which is the main thing an agent needs before running it unattended.

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 0% and the single spool_dir parameter has no schema description at all, so the description is the only source of meaning. It compensates well by explaining the default resolution chain (env ACP_INBOX, else ./spool/executor), which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether to pass the parameter.

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?

States a specific verb ('Pull') and resource ('new marketplace listings') plus the source ('inbound mesh spool'), which is concrete and readable. It is distinguishable from marketplace_publish by direction, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with sibling marketplace_outbox or marketplace_search, so sibling routing relies on inference.

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 implies the ingestion use case but never says when to call this instead of marketplace_subscribe, marketplace_outbox, or marketplace_search. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative named.

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