firestarter_developer_margin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description consistently reinforces the read-only behavior. It goes beyond annotations by specifying the exact returned values (current margin, platform ceiling, margin earned so far) and clarifies the economic meaning relative to share_bps, which helps an agent understand the tool's behavioral scope without an output schema.

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 longer than minimal, but every sentence contributes: definition, return values, read-only guidance with the setter alternative, and a crucial distinction from a similarly named concept. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and the disambiguation earns its length, though it could be tightened slightly.

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 no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the developer margin is, what values are returned, that the tool is read-only, which tool performs writes, and how it differs from a related but distinct concept. An agent has enough context to select and call this tool correctly.

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%, and the sole parameter margin_percent is already documented in the schema as "IGNORED here — this tool only reads." The tool description reinforces the read-only nature and points to the setter tool, but it does not add substantial new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Read this organization's DEVELOPER MARGIN." It clearly defines what the margin is, what is returned (current margin, platform ceiling, margin earned so far), and explicitly differentiates itself from the setter tool and firestarter_create_market's share_bps, making it unmistakable among the many siblings.

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 gives explicit usage direction: it is a read operation, and to set or change the margin the agent should use firestarter_set_developer_margin. It also explicitly warns against confusing this with firestarter_create_market's share_bps, giving both the alternative and the condition that distinguishes them.

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