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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the write/scope profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations lack: the payload is public non-PII data, no customer identifiers are involved, and the tool is gated to TEST. It never explains what the destructive write actually does to the order or whether it is reversible.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the gating conditions. The beta/launch-status wording is somewhat bureaucratic but each sentence carries an operational fact.

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 destructive mutation with a nested object parameter, no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description covers the data-safety and environment gating well but leaves the effect on the order, idempotency and the required shape of public_request unexplained.

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% for three required parameters including a nested free-form public_request object. The description only indirectly characterizes the payload ('public non-PII inventory prices') and hints that order_access_token is what makes the order 'privately authorized'; order_id and the structure of public_request remain entirely undocumented.

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 concrete verb (attach) and resource (public non-PII inventory prices) plus the counterpart object (a privately authorized order), which lets an agent distinguish it from marketplace_attach_synthetic_fixture on the public-vs-synthetic axis. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 real usage constraints: first-product limited beta, default OFF, restricted to Stripe TEST until launch conditions are approved. That tells an agent when it should not reach for this tool, but no alternative tool is named for those blocked cases.

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