firestarter_demand

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description adds value beyond them by disclosing what insights surface (buyer search terms, demand trends, pricing signals). This gives the agent an accurate sense of the response content without contradicting the read-only contract.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the first names the action and scope, the second elaborates the observable data. Every word earns its place and the most decision-relevant info leads.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema obligation, the description covers purpose, scope, and data variety. The one gap is the zero-argument call: since no parameters are required, the behavior of the bare call is never clarified, which for a demand-check tool could be material.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual color about demand data but no parameter-level syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. This is a fair baseline score with no penalty and no bonus.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and a clear resource ('demand intelligence' for 'a specific listing or category'), and elaborates with concrete data types ('buyers are searching for, demand trends, and pricing signals'). It's not a tautology and clearly distinguishable from most of the ~100 siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name which sibling it is not versus, for example, seller_analytics or catalog_search.

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 phrase 'for a specific listing or category' implies when to use the tool and maps to the two parameters, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative-routing cues despite a large sibling set where confusion is possible (e.g., firestarter_check, firestarter_seller_analytics). The usage context is inferable but never made explicit.

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