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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent read, but the description adds substantial value beyond them: result ordering ('newest first'), the full status vocabulary, required credential/scope ('Last Price credential with commerce catalog read scope'), and a concrete failure mode — a self-registered sandbox key is refused with 403 until the workspace is claimed. That precondition/error disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with what is listed and in what order, then the filter, then the two preconditions — a logical progression with no filler. The only waste is restating the status enum in parentheses right before saying 'Filter by status', which the schema already defines.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what a row contains (status, current and proposed price, policy) and the sort order, and it covers both hard preconditions and the 403 failure for unclaimed sandbox workspaces. Limit behavior is fully covered by the schema, so nothing an agent needs before calling 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (limit with default/min/max, status enum) are already fully documented in the schema. The description's 'Filter by status' and status enumeration merely restate the enum, adding no syntax or behavioral nuance beyond the schema; baseline 3 is correct.

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 (list price proposals drafted by the commerce pipeline) and describes exactly what each row contains: status, current price, proposed price and originating policy, plus 'newest first' ordering. The verb 'list' plus the status set makes it unmistakably distinct from approve_commerce_proposal, reject_commerce_proposal and execute_commerce_proposals.

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 implies the read/list use case and notes 'Filter by status', but never names an alternative or exclusion (e.g. 'to act on a proposal, use approve_commerce_proposal / execute_commerce_proposals'). Usage is inferable rather than explicitly routed, which fits the 'implied usage' level.

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