firecrawl_feedback

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

Annotations (`readOnlyHint: false`, `destructiveHint: false`) indicate a write operation, and the description confirms it sends feedback. It warns against storing large outputs and describes the return format including credits refunded. Slightly more context could be given about side effects like credit deduction, but overall good.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose first, then parameter explanations, and return format. It is somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise by consolidating repeated guidance.

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 has 12 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description covers the purpose, usage context, all parameter meanings, return value structure, and constraints. It is fully complete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantics for each parameter: endpoint enum, jobId format, rating enum, issues tags, note, url, pageNumbers, metadata, and even undocumented parameters like missingContent, valuableSources, querySuggestions. It explains constraints (e.g., 'Do not include huge page contents').

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 it is for sending structured feedback on completed Firecrawl v2 jobs, specifically for endpoint-level feedback on scrape, parse, map, or search. It distinguishes from the sibling `firecrawl_search_feedback` by noting that tool has search-focused guidance.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'For search-result quality specifically, prefer `firecrawl_search_feedback` when available because it has search-focused guidance.' Also specifies that it accepts endpoint-wide signals for specific endpoints.

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