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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds meaningful context beyond that — that these are raw seller-entered values rather than derived metrics, and that remediation happens via a separate two-step, approval-gated import_cogs. It doesn't discuss pagination or the `limit` behavior, which keeps it below 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the key contrast, which is good, but the single dense parenthetical for 'fbm' is hard to parse and the sentence is heavily subordinated. It's information-dense but not well-structured for scanning.

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?

Covers the raw-vs-aggregated distinction, the three input kinds, audit use cases, filtering, and the remediation path — sufficient for a read-only listing tool with no output schema. Minor gap: nothing about what the returned rows look like or how `limit` truncates results.

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?

The description adds real semantic meaning to `type` (what 'cogs', 'fbm', 'vat' actually return, including the fbm zone vs sku level distinction) beyond the schema's terse 'Which input to audit'. It also explains the purpose of `skus` filtering. `limit`, `reason`, and `accounts` are left to the schema, which covers them adequately at 80% coverage.

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 ('List the seller's CONFIGURED per-SKU input values') and explicitly contrasts with the aggregated metric ('source of truth, not the aggregated metric'). It goes further to enumerate the three input kinds selected by `type`, so an agent can distinguish it from get_cogs_setup, get_vat_setup, etc.

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 a concrete purpose ('Use it to audit setup') with specific failure modes to look for (placeholder/negative/implausible costs, per-lot vs per-unit, wrong VAT categories, missing SKUs), and names the alternative for remediation ('To FIX missing or wrong COGS, use import_cogs (two-step, with user approval)'). This is explicit when-to-use plus alternative routing.

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