academy_premium_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what is previewed, whether it reflects live or cached commerce data, or any side effects. No contradiction, but zero added value.

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?

It is short with no filler, but that is under-specification rather than conciseness. The single fragment carries no actionable information an agent could front-load.

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 needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a commerce/preview operation with a required identifier and an adjacent catalog sibling, the description omits what is being previewed and how it differs from the catalog tool.

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 coverage is 67%: locale and idempotencyKey are documented as transport fields, but the required `id` parameter has only a pattern and maxLength with no description of what entity it identifies. The description does nothing to fill that gap, leaving the most important parameter semantically opaque.

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?

"premiumPreview: Academy commerce operation" restates the tool name and appends a vague domain label. There is no verb describing what happens (preview what? a price? a product? an offer?) and no differentiation from the sibling academy_premium_catalog.

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?

No indication of when to call this versus academy_premium_catalog or any other sibling. The agent is left to guess the selection criteria entirely.

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