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

Annotations only give the generic flag set (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description carries real weight here. It usefully discloses what is and is not affected (catalogue retained, article mentions/links/images suppressed) and that the change is reversible via unhide_product. It does not address whether repeated calls are meaningful despite idempotentHint=false.

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, both earning their place. The behavioral effect is front-loaded and the reversibility pointer trails it, with no redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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 low-complexity two-parameter toggle with no output schema, the description covers the behavior and reversal path well. The remaining gap is the undocumented productId and the lack of any statement about prerequisites or permissions, which is meaningful for a mutation tool with no rich annotations.

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 only 50% — the site parameter is documented in the schema but productId carries no description anywhere. The description says nothing about parameters, so the agent gets no guidance on what identifier productId expects or how to obtain it, and the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

It names a specific verb+resource (hide_product) and immediately disambiguates it from delete_product by stating the product 'stays in the catalogue'. The scope of the effect (articles mentioning, linking to or picturing it) is spelled out, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling mutations 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?

It gives clear context for selecting this tool: use it when the product should remain in the catalogue but disappear from articles, and it names unhide_product as the reversal path. It stops short of an explicit when-not rule (e.g., versus delete_product) and states no prerequisites, so it is clear but not fully exclusionary.

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