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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and nothing in the text contradicts this. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond annotations: the mandatory sequencing, the fact that accounts_response already contains available_actions, and that actions_details returns exact request bodies, identifiers, fields, time ranges and notes. It stops short of stating rate limits or whether results are cached.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by numbered steps, each labeled with its request value. Most sentences carry operational information (required vs optional, prerequisite ordering), though the Step 2 placeholder 'xxxxxx' repeated three times is slightly noisy and could have been written once.

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 description focuses on the workflow that matters for a 5-parameter setup tool. Coverage is nearly complete except for the undocumented 'platform' parameter, which an agent would have to guess about.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does for most of them: it explains each 'request' enum value, the expected shape of 'actions' (a list copied from available_actions), and that brands requires brand_id plus workspace_id. The 'platform' parameter is never mentioned anywhere, which is the one remaining gap.

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 names the resource (InsightfulPipe WooCommerce queries) and frames the tool as a planning/setup helper, then enumerates the four request modes function-by-function. It is clear what the tool does, though 'planning queries' is a slightly abstract verb and sibling differentiation (vs query_data / execute_action) is only implied by the setup workflow.

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?

Explicit ordered procedure: Step 1 request='accounts', Step 2 request='actions_details' with actions='...' marked REQUIRED before querying, plus two explicitly optional calls. The agent knows exactly when to call which mode and in what order, including a stated prerequisite ('already included in accounts response') that avoids a redundant call.

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