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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds "WRITE" and required fields but does not go beyond the annotations to explain duplicate article-number behavior, side effects, or authentication needs.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It puts the write action and core resource first, then lists required fields.

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 10-parameter create tool with only 20% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. It covers the core action and required fields but leaves optional parameter semantics, duplicate handling, and return expectations undocumented.

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%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions that article number, title, and unit price are required, but says nothing about the other seven parameters such as type, unit, is_gross, VAT, currency, tags, or description.

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 uses a specific verb, "create," and a clear resource, "a product or service," with the parenthetical clarifying required fields. It is distinguishable from sibling list tools and other create_* tools by resource, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or siblings.

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 "WRITE:" prefix signals that this is a mutation, and the description names required fields, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not say when to choose this over other create tools or how to handle existing article numbers.

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