get_popular_marketplace_apps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a list of popular applications with a limit parameter, but doesn't explain what makes applications 'popular' (e.g., based on downloads, ratings, recency), whether results are sorted, if authentication is required, or any rate limits. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections for the main description, arguments, and returns. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the 'Returns' section could be integrated more seamlessly. At three sentences total, it avoids unnecessary verbosity while maintaining readability through formatting.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation (only 1 parameter with basic info), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the return format beyond 'List of popular marketplace applications' (no structure details), doesn't define 'popular', and provides no error handling or authentication context. Given the complexity of marketplace applications and the lack of structured metadata, more comprehensive guidance is needed.

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 description explicitly documents the 'limit' parameter with its default value, which adds meaningful context beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage for this single parameter). However, it doesn't explain parameter constraints (e.g., minimum/maximum values) or how the limit interacts with popularity ranking. With only one parameter and partial documentation, this meets the baseline for adequate but incomplete coverage.

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 ('popular marketplace applications'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list_marketplace_applications' by specifying 'popular' applications, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with that sibling. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated from similar listing tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_marketplace_applications' and 'search_applications' available, there's no indication of when 'popular' filtering is preferred over other listing or search methods. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, timing, or comparison with other tools.

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