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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, but the description adds the important behavioral fact that the created entity is unpublished and that a human approval step must precede going live. It does not mention whether repeated calls create duplicate drafts or what permissions the agent_key grants, so it falls short of fully rich context.

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?

Three short sentences with the non-live guarantee front-loaded and the approval workflow immediately after; there is no filler and the sequencing is easy to scan.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, prerequisites and next steps, but never indicates what is returned (e.g. the product identifier needed for the publish call). That is the one piece an agent needs to chain to the next 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 100%, so all six parameters including the type enum and price bounds are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the provenance of agent_key (returned by open_store), which the schema already says, 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?

"Create a DRAFT product in the store" pairs a specific verb with a specific resource and immediately narrows scope (draft only, nothing live). The contrast with the publish sibling makes the boundary between the two tools explicit without needing to open either 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?

It names the exact follow-up sequence: show the user the draft fields, get approval, then call publish. It also states the prerequisite that agent_key comes from open_store. Both when-to-use and the gating condition are explicit.

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