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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that it stores to IPFS, which is a write but non-destructive operation. No contradiction. The description could mention IPFS-specific details (e.g., immutability, cost), but given annotations, the current level of transparency is sufficient.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Stores a ProductV1 metadata object to IPFS') and immediately provides actionable guidance ('Call before create_offer'), earning its place.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (21 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and prerequisite. However, it lacks details about input structure validation or return value usage beyond the two fields. For a tool with this many required parameters, more contextual guidance would improve completeness.

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 10% (only configId and signerAddress have descriptions). The tool has 21 parameters, many required and nested, but the description does not explain any of them or hint at common patterns. While the return format is mentioned, parameter semantics are left entirely to the schema, which is insufficient for such a complex input.

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 it stores ProductV1 metadata to IPFS, explicitly says it should be called before create_offer to obtain metadataUri and metadataHash, and the resource 'ProductV1 metadata' is specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like store_base_metadata or store_bundle_item_product_v1_metadata.

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 description gives a clear precondition: 'Call before create_offer to get metadataUri and metadataHash.' This tells agents exactly when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, which is acceptable given the tool's specific role.

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