firestarter_demand

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by specifying what kind of data is shown (buyer searches, trends, pricing signals), but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as response format, potential limitations, or whether both parameters can be used together. This is acceptable but not rich beyond 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 short sentences that immediately state the tool's purpose and what it reveals. No filler or repetition; every word earns its place and the key action is front-loaded.

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?

While the tool is simple with no output schema, there is a notable gap: the schema marks both parameters as optional, but the description says 'for a specific listing or category,' implying at least one should be provided. It does not clarify what happens if neither is supplied or whether both can be combined. This ambiguity reduces completeness, though the core purpose and return types are partially described.

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 100%, so both parameters ('category' and 'listing_id') are well documented in the schema. The description mentions 'specific listing or category' which maps to these parameters but does not add extra syntax, constraints, or format details beyond the schema, 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 a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('demand intelligence') for a specific listing or category, and explains what it includes (buyer searches, demand trends, pricing signals). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like firestarter_check or firestarter_seller_analytics, which sound more general or analytics-focused.

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 on when to use the tool: to check demand for a specific listing or category. It implies the use case of exploring market demand without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5 but is above a vague 3.

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