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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the write-and-not-destructive profile is covered. The description adds a useful scope constraint (what it does not persist), but says nothing about auth requirements, side effects, or whether repeated calls duplicate accounts.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the exclusion placed second. No filler; slightly terse at the cost of completeness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a creation tool with 0% parameter description coverage and no annotations about uniqueness or permissions, the definition leaves real gaps an agent would care about.

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 0% across both parameters; the schema gives only types and length limits. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented 'name' and 'description' fields, including whether the name must be unique.

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 ('Create a new private customer account') with a scope qualifier ('private'), which is clearer than the bare title. It does not explicitly position itself against siblings like list_accounts or the record_* tools, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

'when the user asks' is thin trigger guidance. The negative clause ('Does not save entitlements, renewal offers, or concession rules') roughly carves out territory belonging to siblings like record_current_entitlement and record_renewal_offer, but no alternative tool is named and no prerequisites are given.

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