Review ordered shop effects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by enumerating what it does NOT do: no native request, no credential loading, no ownership check, no provider preview — telling the agent which classes of failure this validation will miss.

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 dense sentences with no filler, front-loading the validation action before the exclusions. It is terse to the point of being cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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 preview/validation tool there is no output schema, and the description never says what the validation produces (errors, hashes, a pass/fail report). Combined with the implicit relationship to submit_shop_batch, the description is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the result and the follow-up step.

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 both parameters (tasks and account). The description's reference to 'order/profile label/schema' loosely maps to the ordered tasks array and the account profile label but adds no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 title and description convey a local validation/dry-run of an ordered batch of shop effects, but the core purpose is expressed in dense jargon ('hash order/profile label/schema locally') rather than a plain verb+resource statement. It does not name submit_shop_batch as the executing counterpart, so the agent must infer the preview-vs-submit relationship from the tool name alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative (submit_shop_batch) despite it being a sibling. The 'No native request...' clause hints at a pre-submission check, but the agent must infer that this should be called before submitting.

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