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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains that this creates real data, returns a one-time owner sign-in link and an owner AI key shown once, and includes the free plan limit. Those details materially inform the agent about side effects, secret handling, and non-idempotent behavior. The caution against repeated calls is especially valuable for a creation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action and scope, then moves to outputs, prerequisites, and the one-time warning. Every sentence carries operational value, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important gaps: required user input, returned URLs and credentials, plan limits, and the risk of duplicate calls. It stops short of explaining error cases or what happens if a workspace already exists, but the essential calling context is present.

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?

The schema already has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, including brokerage_name, owner_name, owner_email, state, and agent_count. The description reinforces the three required inputs by telling the agent to collect them first, but it does not add syntax, format, or meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new private Avlira Back Office workspace for a brokerage.' It also names the plan constraints and returned artifacts, making the tool's purpose unmistakable without requiring the schema. No sibling tool creates a workspace, so the action is clearly singular.

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?

It gives concrete pre-call guidance: 'Ask the user for the brokerage name, their name and email first.' It also warns 'call it once, not repeatedly,' which is useful when-to-use and when-not-to-repeat guidance. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but no sibling offers workspace creation, so the omission is minor.

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