firestarter_spend_cap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, and the description reinforces this by stating 'Read-only' and 'this tool only reads.' It adds context by naming the two specific values returned (spend cap and alert threshold) and clarifying that the input parameters are ignored, which goes beyond the 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, the read-only nature is stated early, and the pointer to the sibling tool is placed exactly where it is needed. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: what is read, the read-only guarantee, and the alternative for modifications. It even includes a practical scenario (SPEND_CAP_EXCEEDED) that helps the agent understand when to switch tools. No critical information 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema itself already explains that all three parameters are 'IGNORED here' and points to the set tool, so the description doesn't add additional parameter-level semantics. It does provide useful context about what the tool actually reads, but this is more about output than parameter meaning.

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 the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the exact resource: the buyer's monthly spend cap and the alert threshold. It also explicitly names the sibling tool it is not (firestarter_set_spend_cap), so an agent can distinguish read from write operations without inspecting the 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?

The description states when to use this tool (to read the cap/threshold) and explicitly directs the agent to firestarter_set_spend_cap for raising, lowering, setting, or removing the cap. It even provides a concrete trigger context (SPEND_CAP_EXCEEDED) where the alternative should be used, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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