marketplace_get_popular_marketplace_apps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the purpose and mentions it returns a list, but does not reveal side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or the meaning of 'popular'. This provides almost no behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 very concise and well-structured with an 'Args' and 'Returns' section. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, front-loads the purpose, and contains no redundant statements. The only slight deduction is for lacking any contextual detail that might make it slightly more helpful.

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?

Although the tool is simple and an output schema exists, the description is incomplete given the large set of similar marketplace siblings. It does not clarify what makes these applications 'popular' or when this tool should be preferred over search or vendor-based listings. The absence of annotations further reduces completeness, as the agent receives no safety or usage signals.

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 single parameter 'limit' is explicitly described as 'Maximum number of applications to return (default: 10)', which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare default value. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining the parameter's purpose and default, which is adequate for this one-parameter tool.

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 a verb ('Get') and a resource ('popular marketplace applications'), making the core purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like marketplace_search_applications or marketplace_get_applications_by_vendor, which also return application lists, so it misses the higher bar for explicit differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous marketplace sibling tools. It does not state any exclusions, alternatives, or conditions that would help an agent choose it over marketplace_search_applications or marketplace_get_applications_by_vendor. There is no context on the intended use case, so the agent has to infer it from the name alone.

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