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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying that it creates/updates accounts and applies points, stamps, and credit deltas. It does not cover auth needs, rate limits, or failure modes, but with annotations present this is a solid addition.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a directive and the observable effects. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 complex batch import with an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose, prerequisite, and mutation scope. It does not mention transactionality or partial failure handling, which could matter for an import of up to 2000 rows. However, with annotations and an output schema covering safety and return values, this is largely complete.

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?

With top-level schema description coverage at 50%, the description compensates by clarifying that both rows and sessionId must come from preview_customer_import and should be the same as previewed. It also mentions the effects on points, stamps, and credit, which maps to specific row fields. It doesn't detail format constraints, but it adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema for the undocumented rows parameter.

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 ('Commit') and resource ('previewed customer import'), and explicitly names the prerequisite tool preview_customer_import. It distinguishes this tool from its sibling preview_customer_import by using 'Commit' and describing the write effects. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 gives clear context: use this after preview_customer_import and pass the same rows and sessionId. It names the alternative (preview) and the condition that selects this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any edge cases, so it falls short of a full 5.

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