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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint=false, so the description does most of the work and delivers real value: the product is published publicly right away (review happens after), login is required, and slug collisions are auto-resolved by deriving a different address. It does not explain failure modes, what the post-creation review can do, or what is returned.

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?

Dense but efficient: publish semantics come first, then slug semantics, then the follow-up tool. The leading '登录;' fragment is terse and slightly awkward, but every sentence carries information.

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 9-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the publish behavior and slug handling well but never says what the response contains (product id/slug) — which the agent needs to chain into update_my_product. Category/tag guidance is left entirely to schema defaults.

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?

With 44% schema description coverage, the description should compensate more than it does. It adds genuine meaning for the slug parameter (optional, server-generated from the name, auto-derived if taken), but says nothing about name, tagline, tags, links, logoUrl, or coverUrl, leaving most parameters to the schema.

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 (create a product/work) plus the key effect: it goes live and is publicly visible immediately upon creation. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as claim_product and update_my_product by describing this as the creation step and naming update_my_product as the follow-up.

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?

Gives clear context: login is required, this is the entry point for publishing a new product, and follow-up enrichment (links/media/tags) should go through update_my_product. It does not state when not to use this tool (e.g., claiming an existing listing via claim_product) or any prerequisites beyond login.

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