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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: prices are human strings auto-converted to company currency, and the standard tax table is applied unless taxable:false is passed.

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?

A short paragraph front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by targeted notes on dedup, price format, and tax. Each sentence earns its place with no filler, though the tax and price rules could be slightly tighter.

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 15-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the highest-risk semantics (price format, tax default, dedup, no fabrication). The complex variant and booking paths are left to the schema, which documents them well, so completeness is adequate.

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 80%, so the schema largely documents the 15 parameters. The description still adds value by spelling out the price-string convention ("never send cents") and the taxable:false override, reinforcing key semantics the agent must get right.

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 ("Create a product in the merchant's catalogue"), so the agent knows exactly what it does. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like hub_import_products (bulk) or hub_update_product, so it stops short of the top band.

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?

Gives concrete workflow guidance — call get_products first to dedupe, and ask the merchant rather than inventing values. It does not, though, explicitly frame when to use this versus hub_import_products, which is the closest alternative for creating products.

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