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

Annotations already declare this is non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds meaningful behavioral boundaries: it returns separate direct and external-developer estimates and explicitly does not create distribution attribution, settled earnings, publication, or payment authority.

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 description is three tight sentences, front-loads the core action, then adds return behavior and authority boundaries. There is no filler and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 8 required parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition is too thin. It covers permissions and side-effect boundaries, but does not explain the required pricing, versioning, product, or idempotency parameters well enough for safe invocation.

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?

The schema has 8 required parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the full semantic burden. It hints at supply version and cost estimates, but never explains total_minor, direct_cost_estimate_minor, cost_estimate_reference, expected_version, product_id, or idempotency_key.

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 states a specific verb and resource: setting a draft selling price. It also scopes the operation to the exact confirmed supply version and distinguishes it from publication by explicitly saying it does not confer publication authority.

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 gives clear conditions for use: the price must be a draft, tied to an exact confirmed supply version, and requires products:write permission. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as publish_business_product or update_business_product, but the draft-only framing provides useful routing context.

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