firestarter_import

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

The description discloses important behavioral details beyond annotations: the result is a non-live draft, fetches are attempted but often blocked, specific error codes (PLATFORM_BLOCKED, EXTRACTION_EMPTY) are documented, and activation conditions are stated. This significantly exceeds what readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false convey.

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 long but every sentence carries operational value. It front-loads the core purpose and draft outcome, then methodically covers fetch behavior, failure recovery, and activation requirements without redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema and three interrelated optional parameters, the description covers the full workflow: input modes, platform-specific behavior, error handling, retry guidance, and downstream activation prerequisites. Nothing needed for correct invocation is left unexplained.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds real semantic value: it explains the strategic relationship between source_url, raw_text, and photo_urls, identifies known-blocking platforms, and clarifies when each parameter is required or should be sent preemptively. This goes well beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 ('Import'), the resource ('a seller's EXISTING listing from another marketplace'), and the concrete outcome ('creates a DRAFT listing'). It clearly distinguishes itself from listing-creation siblings by emphasizing EXISTING listings and the draft 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?

It explains exactly when to use it (importing from Craigslist, Gumtree, own site) and how to handle blocked platforms by pairing source_url with raw_text and photo_urls. It also names alternatives for follow-up actions (firestarter_update_listing, firestarter_reprice), giving explicit when-to-use context.

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