marketplace_verify_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does disclose that the tool triggers endpoint, schema, and security checks and states the positive outcome (badge, search ranking). However, it does not mention whether the operation is asynchronous, if it is a write/mutation, any authentication/ownership requirements beyond the schema, or possible failure modes, which are important for a state-changing 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 three sentences, with each earning its place: purpose, mechanism, and outcome. There is no fluff or redundant information, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview but misses key contextual details such as prerequisite actions (e.g., registration, ownership), expected response or next steps after requesting verification, and any side effects or reversibility. It is adequate for a simple tool but not fully complete.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds relevant context by mentioning that schema checks are part of verification, which indirectly ties to the 'schema' and 'schemaType' parameters, but it does not add concrete parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema already offers.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Request verification for a tool.' It further clarifies scope by naming the checks (endpoint, schema, security) and the result (badge, better search ranking). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like marketplace_register_tool or marketplace_update_tool.

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 implies the tool is used when you want a tool verified, but it does not provide explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., tool must be registered first, must be the owner) or when not to use it. It also does not mention alternatives, so the user is left to infer the appropriate context from the description and sibling names.

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