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

Annotations only include readOnlyHint: false, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the creation action but does not disclose idempotency, permission requirements, duplicate behavior, or what happens on success. The added price format note is useful but already present in the schema.

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 sentences with no fluff. Purpose is front-loaded; the optionality and price-format clarifications are the most important semantic notes. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The schema fully documents all 10 parameters and their meanings, which covers the input side. However, as a write operation with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description misses return-value expectations and side-effect behavior. Moderate gap, but parameters are well-covered.

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% and every parameter has a description, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the 'name required' rule and price format, but adds no new meaning beyond 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Add') and a clear resource ('a product to a Meta product catalog'), making it unambiguous what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_catalog_product and delete_catalog_product by the action it performs.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that existing products should be modified via update_catalog_product or warn about duplicate handling. The only guidance is about optional fields, which is parameter-level rather than tool-selection guidance.

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