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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description adds valuable behavioral context: the operation is priced, requires displaying the price, and mandates explicit human approval. It does not contradict the annotations and provides workflow ordering that is not inferable from the schema alone.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause contributes meaning: the alias relationship, the price display, and the approval prerequisite.

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?

The tool has no output schema and 3 required params, but the description covers the essential human-approval workflow and references refresh_merchant for underlying behavior. It leaves some ambiguity about the exact return payload, but the alias pointer and clear process steps make it reasonably complete for this simple tool.

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. The description reinforces the 'approved' parameter's role and adds the notion of showing a price, but does not clarify agent_id or merchant_url beyond their schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as 'Compatibility alias for refresh_merchant', providing a clear connection to an established sibling and conveying the core action. It adds the key requirements of showing the price and obtaining human approval, though it does not fully define what 'refresh merchant' entails on its own.

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 a clear procedural requirement: show the price and get explicit human approval first. However, it does not explain when to use this alias vs. refresh_merchant, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives beyond naming the canonical tool.

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