Review exact ordered commerce tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it performs SHA-256 over exact inputs, makes no provider requests, loads no secrets, skips store ownership checks, and offers no financial guarantee — all useful boundaries not present in the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the positive scope leads and the negative-space limits follow. The telegraphic phrasing ('secret load', 'store ownership check') is compact though slightly terse.

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?

With no output schema, the description should ideally describe what the preview returns; it gestures at SHA-256 and validation results but never states the output shape. Given the annotations fully cover safety and the schema covers both parameters, this is close to complete but leaves the response format implicit.

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% with only two parameters, both documented in the schema (tasks, account). The description loosely echoes them ('exact inputs, request order, selected profile label/mode') but adds no syntax, ordering rules, or constraint detail beyond what the schema and its nested descriptions already provide, so 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 description makes clear this is a local validation/dry-run operation over an ordered batch of commerce tasks, specifying local input validation plus SHA-256 hashing. It stops short of naming the sibling submit_commerce_batch that it obviously precedes, so an 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?

Usage is only implied: the 'preview' name and the explicit 'No provider requests' clause signal this is a non-executing check, but there is no statement of when to call it versus submit_commerce_batch or what precondition (e.g., review before submission) triggers it. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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