firestarter_market_link

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint false). The description adds valuable behavioral context: the code is shareable, redeeming it attributes users to the program, and it enables earning. It doesn't contradict annotations and goes beyond them by explaining the attribution mechanism, though it omits details like code expiration or revocability, which is acceptable for the tool's apparent simplicity.

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: the first states the primary action and prerequisite, the second explains the community impact and optional tagging. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, and the intended audience (community members). It explains the attribution benefit and optional tagging. It doesn't explicitly mention the return value (the generated code), but that is implied by 'mint a shareable join code,' so the definition is adequately complete for correct invocation.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters (program_id, channel, campaign). The description only briefly mentions channel/campaign as 'tags for tracking,' which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, no additional compensation is needed, so a baseline of 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 states a specific action ('Mint a shareable join code') with a clear resource ('for a market you own') and connects it to sibling tools (firestarter_create_market and firestarter_join_market). It distinguishes this tool from others by focusing on the linking/attribution feature, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: the code is for markets you own and is redeemed by others, with optional channel/campaign tags. It references the prerequisite (firestarter_create_market) and the redemption flow (firestarter_join_market), but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or name an alternative for a different scenario. Still, the guidance is strong enough to steer correct selection.

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