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

Annotations already declare this is a non-idempotent, non-destructive write in a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the visibility of the created entity ('private') and the boundary of what is persisted, though it says nothing about permissions or required preconditions.

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, action statement front-loaded before the boundary condition, with zero redundant or filler text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a simple two-parameter creation tool the description is close to complete, with the only real gap being parameter-level detail.

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 0% and the description adds no parameter information at all beyond the creation concept. With low coverage the description must compensate for the two undocumented fields (name, description), and it does not; the fields are only inferable from their names.

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 ('Create a new private product') with the 'private' qualifier adding scope, and the second sentence explicitly distinguishes it from the record_* siblings. An agent can tell what this creates and what it does not 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 negative routing is explicit and maps to concrete siblings ('Does not save metrics, customer proof, or discount rules' → record_approved_metric/record_customer_proof/record_discount_rule). The positive trigger 'when the user asks' is vague, but the exclusions give solid when-not guidance.

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