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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive write. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact the annotations cannot convey: imageStorageKey must be passed as null (i.e., no image at creation time). It says nothing about permissions, side effects, or how to attach an image later.

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?

Two short sentences, action first, with the parameter caveat trailing. No filler, no redundancy.

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 write tool with a nested required payload, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should at least sketch what the product fields are or what comes back on success. It covers one quirky parameter and omits the rest, so an agent cannot confidently populate the required fields object.

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 0% across 4 parameters, including a nested fields object with five required sub-properties (title, url, description, price, currency) that are completely undocumented. The description clarifies only imageStorageKey, leaving the bulk of the parameter semantics unexplained and not compensating for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Add a product to the catalog' clearly identifies a creation operation on the product resource. It does not, however, differentiate from close siblings like update_product or set_product_status, leaving the agent to rely on the name alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as update_product for existing products. The only usage-like instruction concerns a single parameter value, not the choice of tool.

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