firestarter_auto_approve_limit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains the real stored account setting nature, the auto-approval behavior threshold, and persistence. This is a strong addition, but the description could have further detailed the exact return format or value representation, which is absent. However, given annotations cover safety, a 4 is appropriate.

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: it opens with the core purpose, then explains the behavior and scope, and ends with a clear pointer to the sibling tool. Every sentence adds value: the behavior, persistence, applicability, and read-only note. No waste or redundancy.

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 is read-only with no output schema and two ignored parameters, the description is complete: it defines what the limit is, how it behaves, where it applies, and directs to the write tool. An agent has all necessary information to call this tool correctly without opening the schema.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters stating they are ignored and redirecting to the write tool. The description reinforces this by saying 'Read-only: use firestarter_set_auto_approve_limit to change or disable it.' The description adds value by clarifying the read-only nature beyond the schema, but since the schema already explains the parameters fully, baseline is 3, and this adds a bit more context, so 4 is justified.

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 tool reads the buyer's persistent account-level auto-approval limit, distinguishing it as a read operation. It explains the semantics of the limit (at or below auto-approved, above pauses) and differentiates from the sibling tool firestarter_set_auto_approve_limit by explicitly naming it as the write counterpart.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (read the current limit) and when not to (change or disable it, using firestarter_set_auto_approve_limit instead). It names the alternative tool directly and provides context that the setting persists until changed, clarifying its scope across all surfaces.

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