query_marketplace_database

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly identifies this as a query against a local SQLite database, and 'inspect' implies read-only behavior, but it never explicitly states that the operation is non-destructive or what happens if the database is unavailable. The concrete file path is a useful behavioral detail beyond the schema.

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 single, focused sentence with clear front-loading: verb, resource, and purpose. The absolute path is verbose but necessary context, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with a simple enum schema, the description covers the resource and queryable categories, and the schema provides defaults and allowed values. However, there is no output schema, no annotations, and no mention of return shape or limit behavior. It is adequate for basic invocation but leaves the agent without guidance on selecting it over sibling tools.

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 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter in a way that adds meaning beyond the schema. It loosely maps to query_type values but omits 'reviews' and says nothing about `limit` or its default behavior. The enum and default in the schema carry the load, but the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 begins with the specific verb 'Query' and names an exact resource: the local SQLite database at /Volumes/Agency/Products/data/products.db. It enumerates the entities inspected (products, variants, shops, active video projects), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_affiliate_products or audit_seller. It omits 'reviews' from the enumeration, but the overall purpose is unmistakable.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_affiliate_products, extract_product_intelligence, or get_seed_reviews. The phrase 'to inspect' implies a read/exploration use case, but there are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements.

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