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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true; the description adds the genuinely useful constraint that ProductCode must be unique, plus the underlying endpoint. However it omits auth requirements, duplicate-code behavior, and error outcomes, so it adds moderate value beyond the annotations.

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 short, front-loaded sentences that carry no filler, with the uniqueness constraint placed prominently. The API-endpoint sentence is only marginally useful but not wasteful.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers the core action but says nothing about the response, error/conflict handling, or optional-field behavior. It is minimally adequate given the schema does the parameter heavy lifting.

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 100%, so each of the 11 parameters is already documented in the schema (including 'Unique product code (SKU)'). The description's uniqueness note about ProductCode overlaps the schema and it adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Create') and resource ('a new product'), which naturally distinguishes it from the create-customer and create-sales-order siblings. It is clear but does not explicitly call out its relationship to the other create tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as unleashed_get_product (existence check) or an update path, and no prerequisites or conditions are stated. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Create'.

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