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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false. The description goes well beyond that, disclosing the simulate-then-approve two-phase flow ("nothing changes until the seller approves") and the confirm mechanism (manage_action), which is exactly the operational context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Compact and front-loaded, leading with the category tag and the core action. The bracketed tag and shop-scope note are slightly boilerplate but cost little.

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 values need not be explained, and the approval/confirmation flow is covered. Minor gaps remain around the batch of changes and what a proposal response contains, but overall it is sufficient 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 coverage is 50%: account is documented but the nested stock field carries only a minimum constraint, and the description adds no detail about accepted stock values, limits, or batch semantics despite maxItems=200. With half the parameters under-documented, the description should compensate but does not.

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 ("Propose new stock values") and immediately scopes it as a simulated change, distinguishing it from sibling mutators like offers_update_price and offers_update_status.

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?

Makes the usage context clear: this is a proposal that only takes effect after the seller approves, and confirmation flows through manage_action. It does not, however, explicitly state when to prefer this over a direct update path or name an alternative tool.

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