Get owned marketplaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says "Get" and scopes results to company-owned marketplaces, but it does not disclose auth requirements, pagination, return shape, or any other behavioral trait beyond the basic scope.

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?

It is a single short sentence with the scope front-loaded and no wasted words. The leading "GetMarketplaces" restates the name, which is slightly redundant but harmless.

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 zero-parameter getter, the description covers the core resource and ownership scope. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves the return format and the exact boundary versus list_marketplaces unstated, which an agent would need to disambiguate.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline score of 4 applies because the schema has nothing for the description to compensate for.

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 gives a specific verb-and-resource combination: retrieving marketplaces, scoped to those owned by the company. The ownership scope distinguishes it somewhat from the sibling list_marketplaces, though it does not explicitly call out that alternative.

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?

It implies use when owned marketplaces are needed, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance and no comparison to the closely related list_marketplaces or list_marketplace_services siblings. An agent must infer the distinction from the single word "owned."

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