request_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that no charge occurs, that the request is queued asynchronously, and that the operator email is used to notify when data becomes available. Gaps remain on expiry/auth/rate limits and on what the response looks like, but the core behavioral traits are stated.

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 load-bearing facts, cost-free and queued, are front-loaded in the first two sentences, followed by a compact annotated argument list where each line earns its place. Slightly longer than strictly necessary but no filler.

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 an eight-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains every input and the async lifecycle. It omits what the call returns (request identifier) and how to poll it via get_request_status, which an agent needs to close the loop.

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%, so the description must compensate and it does, documenting all eight parameters: the kind enum semantics, datapoint_id provenance ('Id from search_datapoints'), and even units for max_price_credits (1 credit = $0.01). It adds meaning the bare schema titles do not convey.

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?

'Request data from the marketplace' is a specific verb+resource statement, immediately narrowed by the scope note that nothing is charged and the request is queued rather than fulfilled synchronously. The arg docs also distinguish the three request modes (purchase/sample vs unlisted), so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does and what it is not.

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 kind parameter doc gives conditional routing: purchase/sample require datapoint_id, unlisted requires description. That is real when-to-use guidance for the primary decision. It does not mention get_request_status as the follow-up path or state when not to use this tool at all, so it stops short of an explicit alternatives section.

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