Dropshipping Pricing & Content Rule Validator

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already cover safety, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns an effective_rules_snapshot, warnings for adjustments, and blocking errors. 'Normalize' could imply mutation, but the readOnlyHint clears that up, so no contradiction.

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 description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then usage context, then return values. Each sentence earns its place with clear labeling of outputs (effective_rules_snapshot, warnings, errors) and no fluff.

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?

Given only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, timing, and return structure. It even explains what errors mean in the context of a dependent tool (dsers_product_import), making it complete for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 per the baseline rules, a score of 3 is appropriate even without additional param detail. The description reiterates the types of rules (pricing, content, images) but adds nothing beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions.

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 uses specific verbs 'check and normalize' and clearly identifies the resource ('rules object against the provider's capabilities'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating this is a pre-import validation step, with unique return values like effective_rules_snapshot, warnings, and errors.

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 description clearly states when to use it ('before importing') and ties it to the follow-up tool (dsers_product_import). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools, but the intended context is unambiguous.

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