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

Beyond the annotations (write, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses two valuable behaviors: automatic address geocoding and a dedup return contract (deduped=true with existing record, overridable via force). It omits permission/auth needs and visibility implications, but adds solid context the annotations don't carry.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then geocoding, then the dedup caveat. No wasted prose, though it could fold in a bit more param guidance without bloat.

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 14-param create tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the dedup/geocoding essentials but leaves most field semantics and the resulting record shape unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 14 parameters and only 14% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but covers only address geocoding and the force/dedup flag. Key params like kind, visibility, tags, displayName, mainEmail/mainPhone and notes remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ("Add an organization to the care network"), making the create action clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like vitalli_update_organization or vitalli_create_contact, relying on the name to do that work.

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 dedup behavior ("Near-duplicates return the existing record... unless force=true") implies a usage context for adding possibly-duplicate orgs, but the description never states when to prefer this tool over update_organization or how to handle an existing match beyond the dedup return.

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