Create product catalog

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read, non-destructive, open-world write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), which covers the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that—no mention of auth/permission needs, whether catalogs are unique per business, or what side effects creation triggers.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler is efficient. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but as written nothing wastes space.

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 create mutation with an open-world hint, no output schema, and a nested required data object, the description omits return information, required-field expectations, and any ordering/prerequisite context. An agent would need to open the schema and guess at the rest, so it is incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 50%: the nested data object documents name, default_language, default_currency, and event_sources, but business_id carries no description. The prose adds no parameter meaning of its own, so it neither compensates for the gap nor detracts. Baseline 3 given the mixed coverage.

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 states a clear verb+resource ("Create a product catalog") and adds the purpose ("for dynamic product ads"), so an agent knows this is the creation counterpart to list/get/update/delete_catalog. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., a business must exist first), and no mention of alternatives such as reddit_ads_update_catalog or the product-feed tools. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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