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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: buyers see lower prices during the sale, each call is confirmed by default (switchable), it 'reaches other people' requiring user confirmation, and it needs the Cotlet API key with app access. These auth and confirmation details are genuinely additive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scoping rule, and the operational notes (confirmation, API key) are appended. Minor redundancy between the first and second sentences restating the percent range and date window, but overall tight.

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/scheduling tool with no output schema, the description covers discount range, date window, product scoping, confirmation behavior, and auth requirements. Annotations carry the safety profile. Only minor gap is no note on whether an existing overlapping sale conflicts.

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 100%, so all four parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description's notes on product_ids being empty and the 5/10/15/20 percent range merely restate what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Throw a sale on chosen products or your whole store') with clear scope including the discount range and date window. An agent immediately understands this creates a scheduled discount, distinct from the other teachers-pay-teachers tools like create_product or set_product_status.

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?

Gives concrete usage instruction: 'Leave product_ids empty to put the whole store on sale,' which tells the agent how to select the broad vs narrow case. Also flags the confirmation default. No sibling alternatives are named, but for a scheduling tool with no close sibling this is sufficient context.

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