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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable context: it requires login ('【需要登录】'), it's a post-hoc review flow ('先过后审'), and the result is immediately published and visible. It also discloses slug auto-generation and collision handling. This exceeds the annotation baseline meaningfully.

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?

Three sentences, all dense with information: login requirement, publication status, review flow, slug behavior, and forward pointer to update_my_product. No redundant phrasing. The call to action and routing are front-loaded.

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?

Given 9 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the critical creation semantics: immediate visibility, review flow, slug generation/collision, and next-step tool. It doesn't mention output/response, but the tool is a creation action where the created product ID might be expected; however, the description is still sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Slight gap: no mention that name/tagline are required, though the schema handles that.

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 44%, so the description must compensate. It specifically adds meaning for the most important derived behavior: slug optional/auto-generation with derived suffix when occupied. It also states that name is used for URL generation, and that update_my_product handles links/media/tags, guiding whether to pass those params now. However, many params (cat e.g., description, links, tags) are not explained in the description, relying on 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?

The description clearly states: '新建一个产品 / 作品，先过后审：创建后立即发布对外可见' — a specific verb (create) + resource (product/work) with a clear behavioral outcome (publish immediately, visible externally). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that update_my_product is for subsequent edits. The title 发布新产品 reinforces the action.

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 states when to use it (to create a new product) and explicitly routes the agent to update_my_product for continuing to add links/media/tags. It also explains slug behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly describe when NOT to use it versus claim_product or follow_product, though the distinction is reasonably clear.

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