firestarter_verify

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

Despite readOnlyHint:false and destructiveHint:false, the description goes beyond annotations by detailing outcomes: 'A match verifies instantly', 'a mismatch is flagged', 'an unreadable photo is held for review'. This gives the agent a clear model of what happens after invocation, which is valuable behavioral context.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes only necessary details about the process and outcomes. Every sentence contributes to understanding, with no redundancy or 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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, triggering conditions, how to supply inputs, and possible outcomes. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema fully explains the two parameters. The description adds workflow context (how the photo is obtained and used) but does not meaningfully enhance the semantic meaning of the parameters themselves, which aligns with the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Submit a possession-verification photo for a listing whose activation asked for one.' It specifies the trigger conditions (high-value >= $500, luxury category, or source-URL conflict) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like firestarter_confirm_delivery by focusing on the verification photo workflow.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'for a listing whose activation asked for one' with concrete criteria. It also directs the next step ('then activate via firestarter_update_listing'), helping the agent understand the overall workflow. No ambiguous alternatives are mentioned, making the usage context clear.

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