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

The annotations already indicate this is not a read-only or destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: the product is created in DRAFT state and requires merchant activation. This discloses that the product will not be immediately active/advertised, which is critical for agent understanding.

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, compact sentence of 14 words that states the core purpose and the key behavioral nuance (DRAFT + merchant activation). It is front-loaded with the action 'Create' and contains zero redundant or filler content. Every word contributes valuable 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?

Given that an output schema exists (so return value details are not required in the description), the tool is a create operation with full schema documentation and safety annotations. The description covers the essential purpose and the draft/activation workflow. It is sufficiently complete, though it could optionally mention prerequisites (e.g., existence of categories) but such details are handled by the schema's optional fields.

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 100%, with all 8 parameters documented in the input schema (e.g., price as decimal string, productType enum). The description itself does not add any parameter-level meaning, leaving the schema to fully describe each field. Thus the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Create' and clearly states the resource is 'a new shop product' with the important qualifier 'as DRAFT'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_products, update_product, and create_product_category. It precisely conveys both the action and the resulting state.

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 gives clear context by stating the product is created as DRAFT and that the merchant reviews and activates it from the portal. This implies when to use this tool (initial creation) versus other tools like update_product for modifications. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or specify when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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