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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add two genuinely useful facts: the call requires a bearer key (auth) and it returns a site id. It says nothing about idempotency, whether duplicate sites are possible, or what side effects a write creates, which are meaningful gaps 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?

Two tight clauses with the action and the return value front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

For a 5-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum clarify optionality and the fields needed to make a useful record. It supplies the auth requirement and return value but leaves the parameter surface essentially unexplained.

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 20% (just 'label'), and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. Four of five fields (address, tank_gallons, household_size, installed_year) are undocumented in both places, and the description does not explain that all parameters are optional or what a minimal call looks like.

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 ('Open a maintenance record for one septic system') and even names the return value (site id), which lets an agent separate it from read-oriented siblings like get_record_summary or check_service_record. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with a sibling, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to create a site versus using an existing one, nor any prerequisite ordering relative to siblings such as add_events or request_provider_signoff. The only implied condition is that a new system needs a record.

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