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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication needs (Bearer API key), insert-only behavior (no overwrite), and immediate propagation to /catalog and search_catalog. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., duplicate SKU) or rate limits, which would enhance transparency.

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?

The description is concise given the tool's complexity, mixing English and Japanese efficiently. It front-loads the core purpose and key constraints. The bilingual format is space-efficient but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for improved scannability.

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 tool with 18 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context (auth, insert-only behavior, immediate reflection) but lacks information on the response format, error cases (e.g., duplicate SKU), and whether the operation is idempotent. Given the complexity, more detail would be justified.

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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., SKU format, category examples). The tool description adds no extra parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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?

The description clearly states 'Register a new catalog product SKU' and emphasizes 'insert-only, no overwrite', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_product and retire_product. The specific product categories (sash, windows, insulation, etc.) further clarify scope.

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 tool description specifies prerequisites (Bearer API key) and notes that it is insert-only, implying that updates should use alternative tools (update_product exists as sibling). It also mentions immediate reflection in catalog and search, but does not explicitly name the alternative tool, which would improve guidance.

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