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

The description explicitly states that the tool writes data: it 'stores every line's real commission' and 'corrects a rule' when the deviation exceeds 0.5 points. The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, directly contradicting that mutation, and no caveats about permissions or irreversibility are given.

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 core action is front-loaded in a single dense sentence, and the operational hint sits at the end where it belongs. The parenthetical channel list is somewhat long but genuinely documents data scope rather than padding.

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?

It covers data sources, the correction threshold and the scheduling default, which is rich for a two-parameter tool, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, for a tool that mutates commission rules it says nothing about prerequisites, side effects or reversibility, and the safety profile implied here conflicts with the annotations.

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 are fully documented in the schema and the description only echoes the 'last days' scope notion. The examples for the account identifier format already live in the schema, so the description adds little beyond the baseline.

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 uses concrete verbs and resources: it reads finance_transactions statements, stores per-line real commission, and corrects rules that deviate by more than 0.5 points. That makes the operation unmistakable and distinguishes it implicitly from file-based commissioning (commission_import) and manual rule editing (commission_rules_set), although no sibling is named.

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 closing sentence gives a clear trigger condition: it runs daily on its own, so an agent calls it only to force a run now. It offers no exclusions or explicit alternatives (e.g. when to prefer commission_import or commission_rules_set), which keeps it short of a 5.

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