firestarter_market_drops

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' is consistent. It adds meaningful behavioral context: the ownership requirement, the fact that pending_seller_approval appears for drops on another seller's listing, and the field set returned. While it doesn't discuss pagination or sorting, it goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 it is front-loaded with the core action and every clause adds useful information: return fields, statuses, usage triggers, ownership requirement, and alternative tools. It is dense but not redundant, though it could be slightly tightened.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must fully describe the return value, and it does: it lists each drop's id, discount, claimed vs cap slots, status (including pending_seller_approval), the listing, tier gate, and expiration. It also covers the owner-view context and how to use the result with firestarter_cancel_drop, making the tool's behavior complete for its complexity.

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?

The single program_id parameter has 100% schema coverage with 'The market/program id you own (from firestarter_my_markets)'. The description adds a bit more by specifying the market must be one you own and that it was created with firestarter_create_drop, but the schema already carries most of the meaning. This justifies a score above the baseline 3.

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: 'List the community-sponsored drops on a market you OWN'. It enumerates the exact fields returned (id, discount, slots claimed, status, listing, tier gate, expiration), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the buyer-facing firestarter_drops tool, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 concrete trigger phrases ('how are my drops doing?', 'how many people claimed my drop?') and states when to use it versus alternatives. It names the buyer tool (firestarter_drops) as the alternative for buyers and mentions that the returned drop id feeds firestarter_cancel_drop, providing cross-tool context.

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