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

This is the description's strongest contribution: annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, while the text discloses a two-phase preview-then-merchant-confirm protocol and that the call itself mutates nothing. That is context no annotation field carries. It stops short of saying how long the confirmation link lives, what the preview contains, or whether an identical call is deduplicated, so not a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the most decision-relevant fact (the call changes nothing). The money-units sentence is the one piece that does not earn its place since the schema already states it.

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?

With no output schema, the description valuably explains what comes back (a preview and a confirmation link), which an agent otherwise could not know. But for a 10-parameter creation tool at 50% schema coverage with no annotations on parameter meaning, half the inputs are undocumented anywhere, and the description adds nothing about them.

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 50% across 10 parameters, so the description needs to compensate and largely does not — sku, tags, vendor, title, description and stock get no clarification. The one parameter statement, that money is integer minor units, merely restates the schema's own "Minor units (cents)." on price. This is duplication rather than added meaning.

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?

"Add a product" states a specific verb and resource, and it is distinguishable from products_edit, products_set_status and list_products by the act of creating. The second half re-frames the act as producing a preview rather than an immediate creation, which is clear once read but partially undercuts the opening verb. No sibling is named explicitly.

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?

The confirmation-flow description implies when the flow applies (an agent should call this to stage a product rather than expect a created record), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus products_edit or products_add_image, and no stated prerequisites such as which fields must be supplied. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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