yelp_list_markets

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two genuine behavioral facts beyond structured data: that the call is "Free" (no credit cost) and roughly what the response contains ("us, ca"). It does not state that the list is static/reference data or how many values to expect.

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?

One short sentence with no waste, and the operation and scope come first. "Free" is appended efficiently as a trailing qualifier rather than padding.

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-argument, read-only enumeration tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential facts: what it lists, what values to expect, and that it costs nothing. The only missing piece is the downstream use case for the returned markets.

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 and the schema already declares "takes no arguments," so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level meaning is missing.

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?

States a specific verb ("List") and resource ("Yelp sites this API searches"), and glosses "markets" as sites, which resolves the main ambiguity in the tool name. It does not explicitly name what distinguishes it from yelp_search_businesses, but the reference-data framing makes the distinction inferable.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool exists so an agent can enumerate valid market values before calling a Yelp search, but the description never says that or names yelp_search_businesses as the consumer. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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