firestarter_my_market

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it details the return contents (community name, join code, program status, curated shelf) and notes that each pick is buyable via firestarter_execute. It also mentions the dual purpose of re-discovery. The 'Read-only' statement aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 a single, information-dense paragraph. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds usage guidance and output details. While slightly verbose, every sentence contributes meaningful context and there is no wasted 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 no-parameter, read-only tool, the description is complete: it states what it does, when to use it, what the output contains, and even references a related execution tool. With no output schema, this level of detail fully covers expected behavior.

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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters; instead it clarifies what the tool returns, which is appropriate given no input schema.

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 resource ('which community market the buyer is currently connected to'), and specifies the exact output (community name, join code, program status, curated shelf). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'my_markets' (plural) and join/leave operations.

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?

Explicitly lists concrete use cases: 'what market am I in?', 'am I connected to a community?', 'what can I buy here?', and 'before joining/leaving'. This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools for similar queries.

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