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

While annotations indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), the description adds some behavioral context like access restrictions. However, it does not describe the creation process, return value, or potential side effects, so transparency is only moderately above annotations.

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 a single long sentence followed by a shorter one. It efficiently conveys preconditions but lacks parameter descriptions. It could be more structured and concise while covering necessary details.

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?

Given the high complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no schema descriptions), the description is insufficient. It covers access checks but does not explain parameter roles, input format, or return value, leaving significant gaps.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the 9 parameters (including the nested discount object). This is a major omission that forces the agent to guess parameter meanings.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create an upsell from one community product to another.' It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('upsell'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_upsell and delete_upsell.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: check business permissions, note that FREE businesses cannot use it, call check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs, and handle grace-period warnings. It clearly states when not to use it.

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