firecrawl_feedback

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

The description explains that the tool posts to /v2/feedback, provides constraints on field usage (e.g., no huge outputs, use concise notes), and outlines the return format. Annotations only indicate it is not read-only and not destructive; the description adds context beyond that, meeting the requirement for behavioral disclosure.

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 efficiently structured, starting with the core purpose, then usage guidance, parameter details, and return format. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. At ~250 words, it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite covering the main purpose and many parameters, the description does not address three schema properties (missingContent, valuableSources, querySuggestions). Given the tool has 12 parameters and nested objects, this gap reduces completeness, though the return format and constraints are well covered.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining 9 of 12 parameters (endpoint, jobId, rating, issues, tags, note, url, pageNumbers, metadata) with examples and constraints. However, it omits three properties (missingContent, valuableSources, querySuggestions), leaving some semantics unaddressed.

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?

Explicitly states the tool sends structured feedback for completed Firecrawl v2 jobs, lists the specific endpoints (scrape, parse, map, search), and distinguishes from the sibling firecrawl_search_feedback by noting it is for endpoint-level feedback whereas search-specific feedback should use the other tool.

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?

Clearly states when to use the tool (after a job completes, for endpoint-level feedback) and provides an explicit alternative (firecrawl_search_feedback for search-result quality). However, it does not explicitly list situations where this tool should not be used, though the guidance is sufficient for typical use.

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