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

Read-only, idempotent and non-destructive are already covered by annotations, and the description still adds real behavioral context: results include the actual settled figure only when a statement has been imported, and order queries expand to all lines. It does not mention authorization/account scoping requirements or what happens when no statement exists, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the core answer (rule plus real figure) and ends with the order-specific behavior. No filler, and the bracketed [Analysis] tag signals read-only analysis up front.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, and the behavioral notes are useful. The notable gap is that all six parameters are optional, yet the description never says what the tool returns with no selector given, which an agent needs in order to call it confidently.

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 only 33% schema coverage, the description must carry more weight; it does signal that sku, category (id or name) and order_id are alternative selectors and that date drives rule validity, but it never explains how the selectors combine, whether they are mutually exclusive, or what happens when all optional params are omitted.

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 names the resource (commission for a SKU, category or order) and the two payloads it returns: the applicable rule (percentage, base, fixed fee) and, when statements are imported, the actual per-line figure plus deviation. It reads as a retrieval despite the implicit verb, and its focus on per-line rule/actual pairs distinguishes it from commission_rules_list and commission_actual_sync, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the three entity types it accepts and the note that an order returns every line. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus commission_rules_list (rules only) or commission_import/commission_actual_sync (loading actuals), leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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