Commerce Preflight (Moved to Gateway)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the tool performs no local pipeline work and returns a deprecation notice rather than a preflight result, which prevents an agent from misreading a successful call as a passing preflight.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the bracketed '[moved to gateway in SDK 3.3.0]' marker so the deprecation is the first thing read. No padding; the final sentence carries actionable redirection.

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 no-output-schema deprecation stub, the description covers what the tool now does, what it returns in kind, and what to do instead. The only gap is that the gateway endpoint is referenced generically ('the gateway commerce endpoint') rather than by name, leaving the agent to locate 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 all five parameters (amount, agent_id, delegation_id, merchant_name, currency) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is defensible for a stub that ignores them, but it also never clarifies that the inputs are inert — so it earns only the baseline 3.

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 current behavior: the tool no longer runs the 6-gate commerce preflight locally and instead returns a machine-readable deprecation notice pointing to the gateway endpoint. That is far more useful than a tautology, though it describes a stub rather than a capability, so it is clear but not a clean verb+resource action statement.

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?

It explicitly names the two alternatives — compose the pure gate predicates from the SDK, or call the gateway — which tells the agent where to route real work. It stops short of an explicit 'do not call this for actual preflight' prohibition, but the redirect is unambiguous.

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