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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the side effect that a test key and a live key are generated, which the agent would not otherwise know.

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?

Three short sentences: identity of the resource first, the side effect second, the next step last. Zero filler and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 2-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers what is created, what is produced (two keys), and what to do next. The only real gap is that it never says what happens on a duplicate name or what the response contains, though non-idempotency is at least signalled via 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 description coverage is 100%: 'name' documents the length limit and visibility, and 'platform' enumerates the accepted values and the leave-it-out default. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Add a site: a website or app'), and importantly maps the product/site terminology mismatch between the tool name create_product and the user-facing concept of a 'site'. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from near-siblings like add_domain or update_product, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated — you add a site when you need one, and the 'Next: get_install_code' clause gives a real workflow hand-off. There is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison to update_product / add_domain, so it stays at minimum-viable-plus.

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