marketplace_usage_heatmap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the output conceptually (a heatmap of usage frequency) but does not specify details like timezone, data granularity, or whether the heatmap is returned as an image or structured data. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences long: the first states the core function, the second provides application context. No wasted words, front-loaded with the essential information.

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 relatively simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and use cases. It does not explain the output format or parameter interplay (e.g., how 'days' affects the heatmap), but this is not a critical gap for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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?

The schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (days and toolId) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond implying the toolId is the focus of analysis, so it meets the baseline for schema-heavy tools.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Get a heatmap') and resource (tool usage frequency by day/hour). This distinguishes it from sibling marketplace tools like marketplace_usage_history or marketplace_recent_events, which may provide similar data but not in heatmap form.

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 explicitly lists practical use cases ('capacity planning, maintenance windows, understanding user behavior'), giving clear context for when to invoke this tool. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the use-case guidance is specific enough for an agent to choose this tool over generic analytics tools.

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