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

Goes well beyond the annotations: duplicate-name refusal after trim/case-folding, tracking default of true, fresh-row empty identifier groups, historical-identity reuse that mutates domain/type (which explains the destructiveHint), and the partial-commit failure mode with a repair recipe. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and default/rejection rules, then failure recovery. Every sentence carries operational content, though the unbroken block is dense enough that an agent must parse carefully to separate creation rules from repair instructions.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description still notes the saved item plus working scanConfig return, and adds the critical partial-commit/repair path so an agent can recover without duplicating the add. Complete for an 11-parameter mutation tool.

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?

With only 36% schema description coverage, the description should carry more weight; it covers name (nonblank), domain (optional), and tracked (defaults true) but says nothing about entityType/entitySubtype semantics, disambiguationContext, or ambiguousAliases beyond what the schema already states. Partial compensation only.

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+resource ('Add a configured competitor or Topic entity') and immediately resolves the ambiguity that this covers non-rival entities as well. An agent can distinguish it from update_competitor and the create_site/create_topic siblings without opening the schema.

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 concrete routing for failure paths ('After an error or timeout inspect list_competitors before retrying add', 'repair with update_competitor using competitorId') and explicitly bounds scope ('No publication or Scan launch'). It stops short of telling the agent when to prefer create_site/create_topic instead of this tool.

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