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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond them: hosted mode is fully provisioned 'before this returns' (a synchronous, potentially slow side effect) and the call yields a product id plus setup status. It does not mention failure/retry behavior, but retry_product_setup exists as evidence that setup can fail.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the mode semantics, then the return value. Three sentences, all earning their place. The middle sentence is dense but not padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must and does say what comes back ('the new product id and its setup status'). Combined with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, an agent has what it needs. The absence of explicit failure/retry guidance is the only gap, and retry_product_setup exists as a sibling signal.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns a step above by explaining what 'hosted' and 'connected' actually mean operationally, which the schema only hints at with 'Default hosted.' It does not add anything for name or siteUrl, but those are self-documenting in the schema.

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 and resource ('Add a product to the workspace') and immediately elaborates on the two creation modes, which is exactly what separates it from get_product/list_products/update_product. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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 description explains the hosted-vs-connected distinction, which is effectively a usage decision, but it never states when to reach for create_product versus siblings like update_product or retry_product_setup, nor any preconditions (e.g. whether a workspace can hold multiple products). Usage is implied rather than routed.

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