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

Annotations declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description contributes meaning the annotations cannot: it specifies exactly what is preserved (historical orders, fulfillment, refund responsibilities) and what is not done (existing orders are not cancelled). This disambiguates the risky ambiguity in 'pause' and exceeds the annotation baseline, though it omits any mention of what the response confirms or whether the pause is reversible.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its permission requirement, followed by the preservation and non-cancellation clarifications. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

The description is solid on side effects but silent on the four required parameters — none of which are documented anywhere — for a state-changing operation with no output schema. An agent can understand the intent but not how to construct a correct call, particularly the concurrency and idempotency arguments.

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 0% across four required parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden and does not meet it. It never explains 'expected_version' (presumably optimistic concurrency), 'idempotency_key' (retry semantics), or 'confirm' (a const-true acknowledgment flag) — only hinting at product version scoping.

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 ('Pause new sales of this exact product version'), which is precise enough to separate it from update/publish/get siblings in the product family. It does not explicitly name the contrasting sibling (evuun_resume_* or evuun_update_business_product), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 gives one useful prerequisite ('with products:publish permission') but offers no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance or named alternatives, even though evuun_update_business_product and evuun_publish_business_product are obvious candidates for confusion. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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