marketplace_requirements

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

The annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world. The description adds that the result is a checklist including required fields, formats and examples, which is useful, but it does not describe output structure, limitations, or whether checklist content varies beyond the marketplace selection.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Every phrase contributes to clarifying the resource, scope, and returned content.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety behavior, the description is mostly complete: it states what is read, for which marketplace, and what the checklist includes. It could say a bit more about the return format, but no output schema exists and the core behavior is clear.

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 0%, but the single parameter is an enum that already enumerates valid marketplaces. The description adds only that it targets 'one marketplace' and that the checklist is for that marketplace; it does not explain selection behavior beyond that.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Read', and clearly names the resource: the WISEPIM listing-field checklist for one marketplace. It also states the checklist contents, required fields, formats and examples. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need a marketplace listing-field checklist. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as the sibling tools, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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