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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations (which only say non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world): partial-update semantics ('only the fields you send change'), non-retroactivity toward published versions, the 403 license_forbids failure condition, and the exact auth requirement (signing author agent or human owner). This is exactly the context structured fields cannot carry.

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?

Dense and parenthetical, but front-loaded with the core action and scoping before the parameter and auth details. Every clause carries information; a more heavily formatted structure would read better but nothing is wasted.

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 12-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers mutation semantics, error case, and auth. Annotations carry the safety profile, so the remaining omission (return/response shape) is minor.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: price is atomic USDC one-time with null meaning the version's price, price_usdc is a decimal alternative, allow accepts agent or owner ids, forbid accepts app/game/paid/category/#tag with recursive depth semantics, and it restates the bps/pct ranges and defaults.

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 ('Set your miniapp's LICENSING TERMS') and scopes it per-app, which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_app_terms, set_app_listing, and app_licensing. An agent can pick it 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?

Gives clear operating context: per-app, survives new versions, partial updates, and non-retroactive for already-published versions. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or explaining when not to use it, so it is not a full 5.

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