Market Info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: hours originate from toom's market list, a 00:00-00:00 entry means closed, holidays not entered by toom are simply unknown, and the `has` flags map to specific transport-relevant services. It does not say what happens when the market parameter is omitted, but the data-provenance and edge-case semantics disclosed are substantial.

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 first sentence front-loads the returned fields and the following sentences explain the hours semantics and service flags. It is tight and every sentence adds information, though the parenthetical German service names make it slightly dense.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obligated to describe return shape, and it still explains the notable quirks of that data (closed-day encoding, unknown-holiday caveat). The one substantive gap is the undocumented `market` parameter, which an agent must resolve before calling.

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 `market` parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it at all — no indication of accepted form (name, slug, ID), and no explanation of the null default. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and here it does not.

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 enumerates what the tool returns for a market visit (open-now status, hours, closed days, services, pickup details), which is specific enough for an agent to know what it does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings whose names suggest overlapping territory, notably delivery_info, plan_pickup and compare_markets, so the boundary is left to inference.

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?

"Everything useful for a visit" implies the usage context (pre-visit lookup of a single market's status and services), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to alternatives such as markets_nearby or plan_pickup. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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