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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: 'Overwrites' conveys full replacement of existing tiers, 'Only price fields are sent' clarifies that non-price product fields are untouched, and it names the returned fields on a tool with no output schema.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the overwrite semantics and the price-only restriction are front-loaded, and the return-value note is tucked at the end where it belongs.

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 full annotation coverage and complete schema documentation, the description covers the essential gaps: overwrite behavior, restricted field scope, and return payload (no output schema exists). It stops short of noting prerequisites like permissions or rate limits, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 each of the five parameters is already documented, including the 'Omit to leave sell prices alone' behavior for pricing and the idempotency replay semantics. The description's 'and/or' hints at optionality of pricing vs suppliers but adds nothing the schema does not already state.

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 gives a precise verb ('Overwrites') and unambiguously scoped resource ('one product's sell-price tiers and/or supplier costs'), which is clearly distinct from siblings such as adjust_inventory or create_product. 'Only price fields are sent' further delimits the operation.

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 phrase 'Only price fields are sent' implies this is a partial pricing-only update and not a general product edit, which is mildly useful boundary guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives, nor when to use dry_run or idempotency_key, leaving usage largely inferential.

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