firestarter_status

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds rich behavioral context: it reports the current environment (test vs live) and the account the API key belongs to, explains the test mode with fs_test_ vs fs_live_ keys, and notes that the mode is fixed by the key, not a per-call option. This goes far 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?

The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and then explains environment/test mode. It is more verbose than necessary but each segment adds value — the test-mode explanation is critical for correct interpretation. It is well-structured but could be tightened with bullet points. Not as concise as the ideal, but not bloated.

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 status tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers the primary function, optional parameters, environment/account details, test-mode behavior, and the no-argument invocation for the summary. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a crucial usage note: 'call it with no arguments for the environment + account summary.' This clarifies the optionality of parameters beyond the schema, which only lists them as optional. It also implicitly connects execution_id to 'check one order' and status_filter to 'list recent orders'. This exceeds the baseline.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair: 'check the buyer's ORDER HISTORY and order status on Firestarter.' It clearly distinguishes buyer-side order viewing from seller-side (firestarter_seller_orders) and adds environment/account reporting. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiates from tracking-specific siblings like firestarter_track_order.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this to check on orders, see what options were found, get tracking updates, confirm whether you are in test/sandbox mode, or answer which account/user am I operating as?' This is clear context, but it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it. Lacks explicit exclusions, so not a 5.

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