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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write/side-effect profile is known. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: no mention of permissions, idempotency or duplicate handling when the same retailer_id is submitted, rate limits, or what a successful add returns. The price-format note restates the schema rather than disclosing behavior.

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, front-loaded sentences with the action first and no filler. The third sentence largely repeats the schema's price description, which is minor redundancy rather than bloat.

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 10 flat parameters fully described in the schema and no output schema, the description covers just enough to call the tool. However, for a catalog write with a destructiveHint, it leaves open what happens on duplicate SKUs, whether a bulk sibling (bulk_create_*) is preferable for many products, and what identifier the response yields.

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 every one of the 10 parameters is already documented, including the price major-units format, currency code, and retailer_id auto-generation. The description's 'only name is required, everything else is optional' and price example duplicate what the schema already states, adding no new semantics. 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Add a product to a Meta product catalog.' An agent can distinguish it from list_catalog_products and delete_catalog_product, but the description never contrasts it with the very close sibling update_catalog_product, so the create-vs-update boundary is left implicit.

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 by the verb 'Add'. There is no statement of when to use this instead of update_catalog_product (e.g. for products that may already exist), and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The note that only 'name' is required is helpful context but is not usage guidance.

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