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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the most important behavior: the call itself changes nothing, it returns a preview plus a confirmation link, and only the merchant on that page commits the change. It also states money is integer minor units. The 'changes nothing' phrasing sits a little awkwardly next to readOnlyHint=false/idempotentHint=false, which are plausibly explained by the transient preview session the call creates, so this is context-adding rather than contradictory.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the units convention and the preview/confirmation behavior. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is padded or repetitive.

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?

For a two-param nested mutation tool with annotations but no output schema, the description covers the critical missing piece: what the call actually does (preview) and what it returns (preview + confirmation link). The filter semantics are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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 50% and the schema already spells out the change.value semantics (signed basis points / signed cents / new minor-unit price) and the filter selector list. The description only reinforces the cents convention and adds no new meaning for the nested filter fields, so it neither compensates much nor is needed to.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb, resource and scope ('Change prices in bulk'), which clearly separates it from the single-item products_edit sibling. It does not, however, explicitly name any alternative tool, so the differentiation is implied by the word 'bulk' rather than stated.

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 conveys context of use by explaining the preview-plus-confirmation flow, so an agent can infer this is a pricing-workflow entry point. It never says when to prefer this over products_edit, discounts_catalog_sale, or discounts_coupon, and offers no exclusions.

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