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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully adds workflow semantics: the amendment is only a proposal requiring unanimous maker acceptance, and historical sales cannot be altered. It omits auth/permission requirements and what request_id idempotency implies, so not a 5.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It is compact and readable, though the terseness leaves the tool under-explained rather than over-explained.

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 multi-party amendment tool with 7 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description covers only the approval workflow. An agent still cannot map values to parameters or know the full effect of the call from this text.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the burden but adds no parameter meaning. 'Changed terms' loosely gestures at shares/price fields, but agent_id, share_bps, publisher_id, and request_id remain entirely unexplained.

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 names a specific action (proposing changed terms) and implies the product-agreement resource. An agent can tell it apart from product_create or product_publish, though it never names the 'product version' object explicitly and does not distinguish it from sibling product_amend_cancel.

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?

It states a process condition (all makers must accept before another version publishes) but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives such as product_publish, product_accept, or product_amend_cancel.

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