marketplace_recommendations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any side effects, required account state, authentication, or what data feeds the personalization (beyond the vague 'user profile and usage history'). This is particularly sparse for a tool that likely relies on platform usage data.

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?

A single concise sentence that is front-loaded and communicates the core purpose without redundancy. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with two well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description communicates the intent adequately, but it lacks context on what constitutes a recommendation, how 'user profile and usage history' is derived, and what the response format looks like. This is a minimum-viable description.

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%, with userAddress and limit already documented. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate; schema handles parameter semantics.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('personalized tool recommendations') with the basis ('user profile and usage history'). It is distinct from sibling marketplace tools like marketplace_search or marketplace_trending by emphasizing personalization.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as marketplace_discover_tools, marketplace_trending, or marketplace_similar_tools. The description implies personalization but does not state exclusions or scenarios.

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