firestarter_market_earnings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful context about data scope (markets you own) and the breakdown provided. It does not contradict annotations, and the added detail on what is displayed is valuable beyond the structured fields.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and the second sentence adds a clear usage trigger. It is concise, though the word 'override' appears to be a likely typo for 'overview,' which slightly muddies the formulation.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description adequately covers purpose, data scope, and use case. It doesn't specify return format or pagination, but with no output schema and low complexity, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description doesn't need to add parameter-level detail.

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 ('Show') and identifies a clear resource ('earnings of the markets you own'), then elaborates on what is shown ('earnings pending vs paid out, and transaction counts'). This distinguishes it from broader tools like payouts or wallet_balance.

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 explicitly states the trigger scenario: 'Use when a community owner asks how much they have earned or wants their attribution dashboard.' This gives clear when-to-use context, though it does not name alternative sibling tools or explicitly state when not to use.

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