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

Annotations are neutral (not read-only, not destructive), and description adds important behavioral context: permission checks, free business restriction, and required pre-action steps. However, it does not describe what happens on success (e.g., return value) since there is no output 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?

Description is efficiently structured with purpose first, then usage steps. No redundant sentences; each sentence adds critical information.

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?

Given 6 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter roles or return value, leaving significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter (url, title, images, etc.) beyond the tool's purpose. While parameters are somewhat inferable from the name, the description fails to add meaning or clarify optional/required fields like existingExternalProductObjectId.

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?

Description clearly states 'Create or update an external product for a community', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like update_physical_product by focusing on 'external product'.

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 instructs to check business permissions, notes that FREE businesses cannot use it, advises calling check_business_tool_access before inputs, and outlines preconditions like showing grace-period warnings. No alternatives mentioned but the context is comprehensive.

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