Markets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful detail that results carry a 0-10 potential score and per-store language/locale data, but says nothing about ordering, completeness, or whether the set varies by store beyond the enum.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the core resource leads. The list of returned fields is slightly compressed into a comma run that reads like a spec fragment rather than prose.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough about the return shape (language, locales, score) for an agent to act. The missing piece is how these markets relate to the project-level market-setting siblings.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters carry their own descriptions, including the store enum values, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning for featuredOnly and only tangentially clarifies what a 'market id' is.

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 definition states the resource precisely — markets/countries available for a given store — and enumerates the returned fields (search language, listing locales, 0-10 potential score). It never names the related sibling set_project_markets, so an agent must infer the read-vs-write distinction from the name alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of the counterpart tool set_project_markets that consumes these ids. 'Use the country codes as market ids' is a downstream hint about the output, not guidance on when to call this tool.

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