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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the default (365) and the valid range (1-3650), plus the permission scope, which is valuable. It does not say whether the threshold applies shop-wide or per price book, what happens to already-flagged stale prices, or whether the change is reversible.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The default and range are packed in efficiently, and nothing is repeated unnecessarily.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the core setting, its default, range, and permission scope. It leaves gaps around shop_id semantics and the blast radius of the setting (shop-wide vs. per price book), which matter for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds the default of 365 for the 'days' parameter (not present in the schema) and restates the range, but it never explains 'shop_id' (a UUID identifying which shop's threshold is being set). One of two parameters remains undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('how many days old a price book price may be before it shows as stale'), which is clear enough to distinguish from listing tools like pricebook_stalePrices. It stops short of naming a sibling or explicitly contrasting with pricebook_stalePrices, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

'(owner or office)' signals the permission context for who may invoke it, which is useful usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no mention of the related pricebook_stalePrices tool, and no stated prerequisites beyond role.

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