firestarter_listings

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond them: omitting listing_id returns drafts that still need activation, and share links exist only for active live listings, not sandbox or draft ones. This is exactly the kind of nuance an agent needs to answer seller questions about why a listing lacks a share link.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: core purpose plus returned fields, parameter-dependent behavior, usage trigger, and the share-link availability rule. The most decision-relevant information (viewing seller-side listings) is front-loaded, with zero filler.

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 one optional, fully documented parameter and an output schema present, nothing material is missing. The description covers both invocation modes, the draft/sandbox edge cases, and the usage trigger, while annotations and the output schema cover the safety profile and return shape.

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 schema already explains the listing_id prefix (lst_...), the full-detail behavior, and the omit-to-list-all behavior. The tool description reinforces the same points, adding only the 'drafts that still need to be activated' nuance. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and scope — 'View your own product listings (seller side)' — and enumerates the returned fields (name, current price, inventory, status, demand, live share link). This clearly frames it as a seller-side read operation distinct from create/update/delist siblings, but it never explicitly names a sibling, so differentiation from firestarter_list or firestarter_product remains implicit rather than stated.

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?

'Use this when a seller wants to see, verify, or share what they have listed' supplies an explicit trigger condition, and the pass-listing_id versus omit guidance covers both invocation modes clearly. However, no when-not conditions or named alternatives are given, so the agent must infer the boundary against siblings like firestarter_demand and firestarter_product.

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