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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds important context: no persistence, required commerce proposal draft scope, and a claimed workspace requirement with a specific 403 failure for sandbox keys. It stops short of exhaustive failure or response details, but provides substantial behavioral value beyond 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 action and outcome, followed by the no-save guarantee and prerequisites. It uses three compact sentences with no filler, and every sentence contributes useful selection or invocation context.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description states what the caller will see: the proposed price and why. Input schema coverage is complete for the four parameters, including nested object references, and the description adds auth and workspace prerequisites, making it complete enough to call 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%, and each parameter is already documented with references to list_commerce_catalog, list_commerce_policies, and list_commerce_observations. The description names the item and competitor observations but adds little syntax or semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: dry-run a commerce pricing policy against an item and competitor observations. It also states the outcome, the proposed price and rationale, which clearly distinguishes this from mutation and execution siblings.

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 clearly frames this as a dry-run and states that nothing is saved, which implies when to use it for testing before applying changes. It also lists credential and claimed-workspace prerequisites, but does not explicitly name alternatives such as execute_commerce_proposals or when not to use this tool.

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