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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the mutation, the slugification and collision-suffix behavior, the accounting quota, and the return shape matching `switch_org`, giving an agent a realistic model of side effects.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful behavior or context. It includes the key edge case (slug collision) and return information without unnecessary filler.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the main operational concerns: what is created, how naming collisions are handled, quota implications, and the return shape. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and both `name` and `owner_key` are already documented in the schema. The tool description restates some of this context (slugification, same email) but adds little beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('create') and resource ('a new, deliberately-named org'), and explicitly distinguishes this from a fresh signup. It also references `switch_org` by name, helping an agent separate this org-creation action from related account/org tools.

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 clearly conveys when to use this tool: to create an org under the same email as the supplied owner_key rather than a new signup. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the 'not a fresh signup' contrast and the mention of the per-email quota provide usable context.

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