get_my_published_level

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements (implied by 'your'), rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the ID is invalid. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get one of your published marketplace levels') and specifies the key constraint ('by ID'). There is no wasted wording, and it directly communicates the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., authentication, error cases) and return values. For a read operation, this leaves the agent with incomplete context, though the basic purpose is clear.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'levelId' documented as 'Marketplace level ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it only repeats 'by ID' without elaborating on format, constraints, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately handles 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('your published marketplace levels'), specifying it retrieves a single level by ID. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_level' (likely general) or 'list_my_published_levels' (multiple), but doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is specific and actionable, though sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 description implies usage when you need to retrieve a specific published level you own, as indicated by 'your published' and 'by ID'. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_level' (which might fetch any level) or 'list_my_published_levels' (for browsing). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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