run_gartner_market

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds real value by disclosing the cost model ('Flat 5 points per successful run') and the shape of the returned content, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or failure behavior for an invalid alias.

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 resource and followed by the cost note. Nothing is redundant, though the return-content list is slightly compressed.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool fetches and what a run costs. The main omission is sibling differentiation, not callability.

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 100% for the single 'market' parameter, so the schema already documents alias/URL and even gives an example. The description repeats the alias-or-URL notion without adding syntax or fallback details, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a Gartner Peer Insights market profile') and enumerates the returned content (features, research, lessons learned). However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like run_gartner_market_products or run_gartner_markets_search, which an agent must infer from names alone.

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 'by alias or URL' phrasing hints at input form but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of the sibling market/product tools, and no precondition for choosing this over run_gartner_markets_search. Usage must be inferred entirely.

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