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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value beyond them: irreversibility is restated in plain terms ('for good'), and it discloses two non-obvious preconditions – a Last Price credential with commerce configure scope, and a claimed workspace where self-registration sandbox keys are refused with 403. These are exactly the failure modes an agent would otherwise hit blind.

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?

Three short sentences, each with a distinct job: what it does, the alternative, the prerequisites. Front-loaded with the destructive action. The auth sentence is dense but earns its place given the 403 trap it prevents.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, this covers everything an agent needs: permanence, the safe alternative, credential scope, and the workspace-claim blocker. Nothing material is omitted.

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% and the single policy_id parameter already carries a description pointing to list_commerce_policies as the source. The tool description says nothing further about the parameter, so the schema does all the work; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a commerce pricing policy') plus the permanence qualifier 'for good', which immediately separates it from the reversible sibling update_commerce_policy. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative path and the condition that selects it: 'To keep it but stop the pipeline using it, switch it off with update_commerce_policy.' That is a direct when-to-use-this-vs-that routing instruction, not an implied one.

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