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

The description adds the confirmation gate, which is meaningful beyond the annotations. But annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description never says what a refresh overwrites (e.g., locally customized policies) or whether the operation is repeatable, which is exactly the context a destructive tool needs.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the precondition follows the purpose statement. Slightly clipped phrasing ('Requires HGRApi Header channel') costs a little clarity but not length.

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?

With an output schema, full schema coverage, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description only needs to state purpose, scope, and the confirmation gate — all present. The remaining gap is the overwrite semantics, which is a transparency concern rather than a hard blocker to invoking it 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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including that channelOAuthId comes from hgr_list_channels. The description's note that the ChannelOAuthId is 'resolved internally' adds a small hint but sits awkwardly against a schema that marks it required with additionalProperties false.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Refreshes marketplace business policies') and scopes it to 'one visible store'. It does not name the nearest sibling, hgr_load_business_policies, so the read-vs-refresh distinction must be inferred from the verb alone.

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 states the confirmed=true precondition and the one-store scope, which implies the correct usage context. However, it never contrasts this with hgr_load_business_policies or says when a refresh is warranted versus simply loading existing policies.

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