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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds materially: owner-gating, audit-log recording, non-retroactivity, and that existing buyers keep access. This goes beyond the structured fields and tells the agent exactly what side effects to expect.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying a distinct constraint (ownership, price rules, non-retroactivity, validation path), with the main action front-loaded. No filler or repetition.

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?

For a mutation tool with an output schema and full parameter coverage, the description provides all needed context: owner prerequisite, price bounds, enum semantics, and downstream impact on existing buyers. An agent can invoke it correctly without additional assumptions.

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?

Input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions and enums, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 50000-cent cap and 'ignored for free' behavior, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('price of YOUR OWN agent'), and adds the qualifier 'audited price-edit', making the operation unmistakable. This naturally separates it from nearby tools like findagent_edit_metadata and findagent_buy_agent.

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 clearly scopes when the tool applies: only the agent's owner may use it, and it is the validated equivalent of the web price editor. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use this one, so it misses the top bar but is well above vague.

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