firestarter_preview

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds concrete behavioral details: 'nothing is bought and no approval is created,' and it explains the live eligibility dimensions (budget, deadline, shipping). This significantly exceeds the binary annotation and sets accurate expectations for side effects and returned information.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and packed with meaningful output and usage details. No wasted words; every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's function and usage.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 params, nested context, output schema, many siblings), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage timing relative to firestarter_execute, output content, and side-effect guarantees. The detailed return format is left to the output schema, which is appropriate.

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 covers all 10 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by connecting parameters to the returned eligibility criteria (e.g., deadline, max_price, city/country) and clarifying that context.intent only affects ranking in firestarter_execute, not the preview itself.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Preview real products for a natural-language request'), clearly states the return values (prices, buyability, shipping, eligibility), and distinguishes itself from firestarter_execute, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 tells the agent when to use the tool: 'Use it to show the buyer what's available and answer "what can you get me?" before committing to firestarter_execute.' This names the key alternative and positions the tool temporally in the workflow, giving clear guidance on when not to use it (i.e., when purchase is intended).

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