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

The annotations already establish that this is a write operation, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds little beyond that: it does not describe duplicate behavior, persistence effects, required ownership, status implications, or what happens after creation.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the basic purpose, and any missing detail is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness issue.

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 tool with 14 parameters, only 2 required, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not explain which parameters belong to held visas versus applied-for visas, how entries and costs relate, or how the tool should be invoked correctly in different scenarios.

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 only 36% and the tool description does not mention any parameter names, required fields, formats, or relationships. It does not compensate for underspecified fields like max_entries, entries_allowed, cost_paid, cost_currency, or passport_country_code.

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 clearly states what the tool does: it records a visa the user holds or has applied for. It is specific enough to distinguish from non-visa tools like add_passport or create_flight, but it does not explicitly contrast with update_visa or delete_visa, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given relative to sibling tools such as update_visa, delete_visa, or list_visas. The phrase 'holds or has applied for' gives useful context but does not explain when an agent should choose create_visa instead of another tool.

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