commerce_preflight

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the tool no longer executes and returns a deprecation notice. It could add a bit more about the notice's format or that input parameters are ignored, but the core behavioral change is transparently stated.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the deprecation status, and every clause adds value. 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?

For a deprecated stub tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, why, and what to use instead. It even points to the gateway endpoint via the deprecation notice, making the context complete.

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 the schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond noting that the tool is deprecated, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Purpose is explicit: the tool is deprecated and now returns a machine-readable deprecation notice instead of running the preflight pipeline. It clearly states the resource (commerce preflight orchestration) and the new behavior, distinguishing it from the actual preflight functionality now living in the gateway.

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 explicitly tells the agent when not to use this tool ('no longer runs the pipeline locally') and provides concrete alternatives: 'Compose the pure gate predicates from the SDK yourself, or call the gateway.' This is perfect usage guidance.

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