market_screen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses 'Uses caching + concurrent API calls + smart skip for speed', which is useful behavioral detail, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, describe failure handling, or mention side effects like cache writes. Incomplete but non-trivial transparency.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence action, an Args list with clear explanations, and a usage statement. Every line earns its place; no redundant or filler content.

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?

Covers purpose, when-to-use, all parameters, and some behavioral details. However, with no output schema, it omits return format and expected output shape. It also does not describe prerequisites (e.g., pool_build must be run first) or error handling, leaving moderate gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the Args section explains all four parameters with meaningful semantics: pool_keywords accepts 'cached_top', limit and min_search_volume define limits, and concurrency has an explicit 1-10 range. This fully compensates for the schema gap, though it could mention defaults (already in schema).

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 'Run keyword_detail on top pool keywords for market screening', identifying a specific action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like keyword_analyze and pool_build, and the 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' line clarifies the purpose of evaluating new-seller opportunity.

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?

Provides explicit 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN: Evaluating which markets have best new-seller opportunity', which is clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternative tools, so it lacks exclusions.

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