firestarter_check

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds behavioral detail by specifying that the tool runs a product search and diff, providing context about what the check involves without contradicting the annotations.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no fluff or repetition. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, timing, and behavior.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what it does, when to use it, and the internal process. It does not mention what the tool returns, but for a trigger-like action, the lack of return-value details is not a significant gap. Overall, it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 fully describes monitor_id with a clear description, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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's purpose: to trigger an immediate check on a monitor. It uses a specific verb ('trigger') and resource ('monitor'), and further explains that it runs a product search and diff, which distinguishes it from waiting for scheduled checks and from sibling tools like watch or status.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you want an immediate check instead of waiting for the next scheduled one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'instead of waiting' phrase effectively implies the alternative, earning a 4.

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