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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the downstream consequence (the product becomes mentionable/linkable in articles) and the manual-only scope, but it says nothing about what happens if the product already exists, despite idempotentHint=false implying duplicate risk.

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, zero waste: capability and required inputs come first, then the exclusion. Nothing is padded or repeated from structured fields beyond the required-fields reminder.

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 non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, required inputs and the key alternative path. The remaining gap is the undocumented optional parameters and the duplicate-creation behavior, but the core call decision is supportable.

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?

Only 2 of 9 parameters (site, image) have schema descriptions (22% coverage), so the description must compensate — instead it only restates that name and description are required, which the schema already marks as required. url, tags, price, currency and productType are undocumented in both places, so an agent gets no guidance on the optional fields.

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 ("Adds a manual product") plus the effect that matters downstream ("so articles can mention and link to it"). It also carves itself away from the automatic catalogue path, so an agent can distinguish it from sync_products/get_product without opening a 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?

Explicitly says when NOT to use it (Shopify or Dutchie catalogues, which sync automatically), which is the main ambiguity for product creation. It doesn't name the sibling to use in that case (e.g. sync_products / get_product_sync_status) or clarify add_ vs update_product, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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