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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the plan-tier prerequisite, which is genuine context beyond annotations. It still omits duplicate/error handling and what happens if the plan requirement is unmet.

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 purpose front-loaded and the prerequisite second. Zero wasted words; everything is load-bearing.

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 6-param create tool with 100% schema coverage, complete annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key plan prerequisite. Remaining gaps (duplicate handling, error behavior) are minor given the structured fields carry the rest.

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 the schema fully documents all 6 parameters (including required 'name' and the website_id fallback to primary). The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the 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+resource ('Add a product') and adds scope by clarifying its effect ('chatbot can show as a card'). Clear enough to separate from add_image/add_knowledge_text siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative. Strong, specific purpose statement.

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?

'Needs the Standard plan or higher' provides a real prerequisite/eligibility condition, which is useful gating information. However there is no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and no exclusions (e.g., how it differs from a general knowledge add). Implied usage only.

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