firestarter_check

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

The description explains that the tool performs a product search and diff immediately, which is an action beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation. It does not mention potential side effects like cost, rate limiting, or whether the operation is synchronous, but it provides reasonable detail about the behavior. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Trigger an immediate check on a monitor'), followed by a clarifying sentence about what the check entails. There is no redundant information; each sentence earns its place.

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 a simple tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states what the tool does, when to use it, and the expected behavior. It does not explain return values, but that is not required given the absence of an output schema. The description is complete enough for correct usage.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'monitor_id' with a clear description ('The monitor ID to check now'). The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, but since the schema is already explicit, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No additional parameter nuance is provided.

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 states a specific verb ('Trigger') and resource ('check on a monitor'), and clearly distinguishes it from scheduled checks by saying 'immediate' and 'instead of waiting for the next scheduled check'. It also specifies the action ('Runs the product search and diff'), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like watch or unwatch.

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 indicates when to use this tool: when an immediate check is needed, as opposed to waiting for the scheduled check. It contrasts with the alternative (waiting) and implies it is for on-demand execution. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or reference other tools, but the usage context is clear.

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