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

This is the standout. With annotations only saying readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false/idempotentHint=false, the description adds critical non-obvious behavior: the call changes nothing, returns a preview of proposed changes plus a confirmation link, and only the merchant can complete it. It also discloses the money-as-integer-cents convention. None of this is derivable from the 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?

Three tight sentences, zero waste, and the verb+resource is front-loaded before the surprising behavioral caveat. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 mutation-flow tool with no output schema, the description does explain what the call returns (a preview and confirmation link), which is exactly the burden it must carry. It is nearly complete; a small gap is that it does not clarify which fields are editable, though the schema covers that.

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 67% and the schema descriptions are already rich (tags REPLACES the list, status enum semantics, collections REPLACES membership). The description only adds the cents-unit convention, which does not even map to a visible schema parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change a product'), and the second/third sentences clarify the actual nature of the operation (a preview generator, not a direct mutation). It does not name sibling alternatives like products_set_status or products_bulk_price_edit in the description itself (though the schema does).

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 important workflow context ('Only the merchant, on that page, can make it happen'), which is implicit usage guidance about a two-phase confirmation flow. However it gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative routing; sibling disambiguation (e.g. bulk_price_edit, set_status) lives only in the schema, not the description.

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