marketplace_tool_insights

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the output categories (revenue breakdown, usage patterns, user metrics, performance data, recommendations), which is meaningful behavioral context. However, it omits whether the tool is strictly read-only, whether the caller must own the tool, auth/permission requirements, or error behavior—important gaps for an unannotated 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?

The description is a single ~30-word sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource, then enumerates the insight categories efficiently. Every clause adds information without redundancy or filler.

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 2-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates partially by listing the expected output categories. Yet it fails to clarify scope (own tools vs. any tool), how it differs from overlapping siblings, or what 'actionable recommendations' are based on, leaving the agent with unresolved ambiguity.

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%, with both toolId and periodDays clearly documented (including default, min, and max). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('deep insights for a specific tool') and enumerates what's included (revenue breakdown, usage patterns, user metrics, performance, recommendations), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like marketplace_tool_revenue, marketplace_usage_heatmap, or marketplace_analytics_overview, which could overlap significantly.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many marketplace analytics siblings (marketplace_tool_revenue, marketplace_creator_dashboard, marketplace_analytics_overview, marketplace_usage_heatmap), the description provides zero exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to guess which tool fits.

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