firestarter_payouts

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it warns that listings without a payout method appear 'browse-only' and clarifies that calling with no args checks status while passing provider sets up a new method. It does not contradict the provided readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false; the 'View Payouts' title is misleading but the description and annotation flags align.

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 front-loaded with the most critical fact ('REQUIRED for listings to be purchasable') and every subsequent sentence adds distinct value—consequence, provider comparison, usage modes, and regional recommendation. It is appropriately sized with no 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 tool with no output schema and basic annotations, the description covers the essential context: purpose, consequence of missing setup, how to check vs. set up, and provider selection. It does not describe the status response format or setup confirmation steps, but the schema sufficiently documents parameter requirements.

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?

Schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3; the description adds selection guidance by contrasting Stripe (46 countries) vs PayPal (200+ countries) and advising PayPal outside US/EU. However, it omits the payoneer/wise-related parameters present in the schema and oversimplifies to 'two providers', creating slight ambiguity.

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?

Description leads with 'Manage seller payout method' and explains the business consequence ('REQUIRED for listings to be purchasable... browse-only'), making the tool's purpose concrete. It distinguishes itself from generic payout/payment siblings by specifying both a status-check mode and a setup mode ('Call with no arguments... Pass provider...'). It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling such as firestarter_connect_payouts, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 gives explicit operational guidance: check current status with no args, pass provider to set up, and recommends PayPal 'Outside the US/EU' as the global option. This is clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not contrast with sibling tools like firestarter_payment_method or firestarter_connect_payouts.

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