marketplace_get_applications_by_vendor

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action and return value, and the verb 'Get' implies a non-destructive read, but it does not mention edge cases like exact-match requirements, empty results, pagination, or error behavior. This is adequate but minimal for a read operation.

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 compact docstring with clear Args and Returns sections and no redundant prose. Every line contributes information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 a single required parameter and an available output schema, the description covers the essential invocation contract: what the parameter is, what the call returns, and the overall scope. It omits edge-case behavior (e.g., unknown vendor) but this is a simple read operation, and the output schema can fill in structural details.

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 defines 'vendor' only as a required string with no description (0% coverage), so the description's Args section adds meaningful value by labeling the parameter and providing concrete examples ('vultr', 'LiteSpeed_Technologies'). It could go further by specifying case sensitivity or matching behavior, but it clearly compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('applications') with a specific filter ('from a specific vendor'), which matches the tool name and distinguishes it from singular lookup or search tools like marketplace_get_application and marketplace_search_applications. However, it does not explicitly name those siblings or contrast itself against them, so it lacks the full differentiation seen in top-tier descriptions.

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 intended use case (retrieve all applications for a given vendor) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools such as marketplace_search_applications or marketplace_get_application. It also includes no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing, which is a notable gap given the large marketplace sibling family.

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