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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses important behavior: the call is non-mutating, returns a preview of the change plus a confirmation link, and only the merchant can actually apply it. That is exactly the kind of side-effect detail an agent needs. It loses a point because the annotations set readOnlyHint=false while the text insists 'calling this changes nothing,' a mild tension, and the stray 'Money is integer minor units (cents)' line has no corresponding parameter.

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 tight sentences with the core action and the preview/confirmation semantics front-loaded. The money-units sentence is irrelevant to the schema and is dead weight, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining what the call returns (a preview of changes and a confirmation link) and who can finalize it. Combined with a fully documented input schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the odd money reference and lack of sibling routing leave a small gap.

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 100% and each of body, kind, and published is thoroughly documented in the schema itself (format, length, enum meanings, publish default). The description adds no parameter-level meaning and in fact mentions a money-in-cents convention that maps to no visible parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Write or update a policy page.' An agent immediately knows the operation and target. It doesn't, however, distinguish this from plausible siblings such as upsert_content or set_page_sections, so it stops short of the top score.

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 explains the call flow (preview, then merchant confirmation), which is useful context, but it never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives like upsert_content or get_page. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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