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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds some behavioral context: 'FREE during validation', 'No key, credits, wallet or preparation needed', 'strict grouping', and 'per-price errors', which go beyond annotations. However, it does not detail error handling or output structure.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds some value, though the final sentence 'Existing source and input limits apply' is vague and slightly redundant.

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 complexity (nested object with multiple required fields, enums, and output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the main functionality and some constraints, but lacks details on the required input structure, parameter meanings, and how errors are reported. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 0%, so the schema itself provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'explicit locale, currency and decimal scale' and 'up to 50 displayed prices', which maps to some of the nested parameters (locale, currency, minorUnitDigits, amounts, max 50). However, it does not explain the required 'input' object structure, the meaning of 'id' and 'text' within amounts, or enum restrictions.

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 states a specific verb ('Normalize') and resource ('displayed prices') along with scope details (up to 50, explicit locale, currency, decimal scale). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like commerce_price_components or commerce_pack_size_normalize.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as commerce_price_components and commerce_unit_price exist, but the description offers no comparison or exclusions.

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