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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the agent knows this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent local write. The description adds only the required-field prerequisite, which the schema already encodes, and says nothing about duplicate handling, permissions, or the created record's identifiers.

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 short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the prerequisite immediately after. No filler, no restating of the title beyond the necessary verb.

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 six-parameter create tool with no output schema, the definition is adequate because the schema is fully described and annotations cover the write semantics. What is missing is consequence information: what the response contains (new ID), duplicate-name behavior, and any category or permission constraints.

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 all six parameters including model, isActive, categoryId and description are already documented, and the schema declares name and price as required with exclusiveMinimum on price. The description's mention of name and price adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

"Create a new product/service in the catalog" names a specific verb (create) and resource (product/service in catalog), which clearly separates it from fetch_product, update_product and delete_product. It stops short of explicitly stating that differentiation, so it lands just below the top mark.

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 gives one prerequisite ("Requires at least a name and price") but never says when to reach for this tool versus update_product (e.g., if the product already exists) or what happens on a duplicate. Usage is implied by the verb rather than guided.

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