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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower; the description still earns credit by spelling out exactly what is destroyed ('it overwrites any existing comment') and naming the underlying endpoint, which corroborates rather than contradicts the safety profile.

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?

One compact sentence with the write-safety warning front-loaded and zero filler; nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 two-parameter write with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, mutation semantics, and overwrite risk. Only the response behavior after the write is unaddressed, a minor gap.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description adds nothing param-specific (no width limit, no format details for sale_id). Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('add or replace the comment of a sale') plus the exact endpoint POST /sales/comments/. No sibling in the list touches sale comments, and the leading 'WRITE:' marker immediately separates it from the many read/list siblings.

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 add-or-replace semantics are clear, which implies when to use it, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' or precondition guidance (e.g. that the sale must exist or be open/closed). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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