firestarter_my_market

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 closing 'Read-only' is somewhat redundant. However, it adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the '(if any)' caveat signals that no market may exist, and the 'buyable via firestarter_execute' line tells the agent how to proceed after seeing products. No contradiction with annotations.

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 core purpose leads, followed by trigger examples and the read-only tag. It is one compact block with no filler, though the long first sentence with em-dashes and a parenthetical is slightly run-on. The trigger-list sentence is helpful enough to justify its length.

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?

Has a true output schema, so return values need no description. For a parameterless read tool, the description covers purpose, when to call, edge cases ('if any'), and the follow-up buy action via firestarter_execute. Nothing an agent needs to select and call it correctly is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 — the description cannot add parameter-specific meaning. Instead it wisely documents what the output contains (community name, join code, status, curated picks, listings), which serves the agent better than parameter detail would for a parameterless tool.

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-resource pair ('Show which community market the buyer is currently connected to') and enumerates the exact data returned: community name, join code, program status, curated shelf, and listings. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like firestarter_my_markets (plural, listing all markets) by emphasizing 'currently connected to' — an agent can tell it apart without opening any sibling schema.

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?

Provides explicit trigger phrases ('what market am I in?', 'am I connected to a community?', 'what can I buy here?') and a clear temporal use case (before joining/leaving to confirm current state). This is as concrete as usage guidance gets — the agent knows exactly which buyer intents route here.

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