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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds behavioral context by stating preconditions and constraints (FREE businesses cannot use, need to check access). It does not describe return behavior, but the mutation is straightforward.

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 sentences, all necessary and front-loaded with the purpose. It efficiently conveys critical information without unnecessary words.

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 tool's simplicity (two required params, no output schema), the description covers purpose and usage constraints but lacks parameter details. It is adequate but could be more complete by describing the parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not describe the parameters 'communityId' or 'passOnTakeRate' at all. The term 'processing fees on' hints at the boolean, but there is no explanation of the required community ID.

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 'Update whether a community passes processing fees on,' which specifies the verb 'update' and the resource 'processing fee preference.' This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_processing_fee_preference.'

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, show grace-period warnings and resubscribe links, and never proceed when access is blocked.

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