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

The description says 'without writing', which asserts no side effects, but annotations declare readOnlyHint=false (not read-only). That is an apparent contradiction an agent would rely on incorrectly. The description offers no clarification about what preview state, if any, is persisted.

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?

The single sentence is front-loaded and has no wasted words. It is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters, but as a structural matter it is efficient.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the input side is severely under-described: 5 parameters with no semantics in schema or description, plus ambiguity about whether any state is written. For a preparation tool whose entire value is a safe preview, this is incomplete.

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?

There are 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. Terms like steps, restore_to, product_ref, product_name, and allow_zero_volume are completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess the shape of the funnel proposal.

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 pair (validate, preview) and resource (proposed funnel), and 'without writing' distinguishes it from the sibling confirm tool. However, it does not explicitly name products_funnel_confirm, so the differentiation requires inference.

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?

'Without writing' implies this is a dry-run step before products_funnel_confirm, but the description never states when to use this versus the confirm tool, nor what prerequisites or inputs are expected. Usage is only implied.

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