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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds context about prerequisites and restrictions (e.g., free businesses cannot use), which clarifies behavior beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects or reversibility, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 five sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then adds necessary usage guidelines. Every sentence is relevant, though the interchangeability note could be more concise. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured.

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 simplicity of the tool (updates a boolean), the description covers prerequisites and access checks. However, it does not explain the optional 'isActive' parameter's behavior when omitted, nor does it mention the response format. For a mutation without output schema, some guidance on return values is missing.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that communityId can refer to a business ID (interchangeability), but does not describe 'discountId' or 'isActive'. Parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 updates the active state of a community discount. It clarifies the interchangeability of 'business' and 'community', but given the existence of a sibling 'update_community_discount', the differentiation is confusing, though purpose is still clear.

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 guidelines: check business permissions, call 'check_business_tool_access' before collecting inputs, show grace-period warnings and resubscribe link, and never proceed when access is blocked. It also notes that FREE businesses cannot use this tool. This is comprehensive and actionable.

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