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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false and openWorld=true; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing that live credentials are returned ONCE (a critical, non-recoverable side effect that reinforces non-idempotency), the identity/attestation requirements needed to succeed, and the activating gates. This is the kind of operational context the annotations cannot carry.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then requirements, then the return value and scope limits. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and each sentence carries distinct 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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by stating what comes back ('returns new live credentials once'). Combined with prerequisites, gating conditions, and explicit scope exclusions, an agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and what to expect.

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% and the nested body description already lists fields, so the baseline is 3. The description adds interpretive meaning by mapping groups of parameters to intent: 'accountable customer identity' (legal_name, authorization_reference), 'accepted current terms' (terms_version, terms_accepted), and 'authorized-agent attestation' (authorized_agent). That is a modest but real value-add over the schema.

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 and resource: 'Create a separate live organization using an authenticated sandbox account.' The sandbox→live transformation is unambiguous and the closing sentence ('Does not purchase credits or establish copyright authority') fences off adjacent concepts. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from the closest sibling, enroll_agent, so it is clear but not fully self-differentiating.

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?

Gives a clear invocation context (authenticated sandbox account) and enumerates the prerequisites that gate success: accountable customer identity, accepted current terms, authorized-agent attestation, supported countries, activation gates. It offers negative scope exclusions ('does not purchase credits'), but never names an alternative tool for those adjacent needs, so it is strong context without explicit alternative routing.

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