query_monetization

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

With readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive already declared in annotations, the description earns credit for adding traits annotations can't express: 'Local only', 'never saves prices or changes catalog state', 'Missing response data is not absence', and 'No automatic retries or pagination'. These are meaningful operational caveats for an agent.

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?

Short, front-loaded, and every clause carries distinct information (scope, safety, dependency, data caveat, retry/pagination caveat). The telegraphic, fragment-heavy style is slightly harder to parse but wastes no words.

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, and the description still flags that missing data is not absence. It covers scope, side-effect profile, dependency, and pagination limits, but leaves the param surface entirely delegated to describe_api_method.

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% across three required params (method, parameters, body), and the description supplies no meaning for any of them beyond implying method selects one of two operations. The pointer to describe_api_method is a partial mitigation, but the description itself does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('Run one scoped read-only commerce POST') and enumerates the two scoped operations (regional price conversion, offer batch reads). An agent can tell it apart from read_reporting or list_api_methods, though 'commerce POST' is jargon that isn't fully self-explanatory.

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 'Inspect describe_api_method' line routes the agent to a prerequisite/dependency, which is useful. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings or under what conditions each of the two operations applies, leaving usage largely implicit.

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