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

The annotations already declare a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive write operation. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it references the POST /v1/products rules, states the identifier requirement for recall watch, and clarifies that the returned passport gap is a readiness signal rather than a legal determination.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action ("Register one product") and then adds only relevant constraints and return-signal caveats.

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?

This is a 10-parameter mutation with a nested object, low schema coverage, and no output schema. The description gives some return context but does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics or explain failure/duplicate behavior, leaving important gaps for correct invocation.

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 only 20% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate. It mentions GTIN, NDC, and UPC in the recall-watch context, but leaves most parameters—including sku, brand, category, dpp_fields, description, and lot_numbers—without added meaning, and does not explain the nested dpp_fields object.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Register one product," and references POST /v1/products for the governing rules. It implicitly distinguishes single-product registration from sibling tools like import_products, but does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 phrase "Register one product" implies single-record creation versus batch import, and the recall-watch identifier requirement gives one usage condition. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus import_products, list_products, or other product-related siblings.

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