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

Annotations already declare the safe-write profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false), so the barrier is low. The description adds the required authorization scope and the post-create linking obligation, which is genuine behavioral context not present in the annotations. It does not clarify whether a duplicate name fails or what the tenant-uniqueness constraint does on conflict.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then scope and follow-up. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

Covers what the tool does, the auth requirement, and the two next-step linking calls for a six-parameter create tool with no output schema. The only gap is that it never indicates whether the created service area's identifier is returned, which the recommended linking calls would need.

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% across all six parameters, so the schema already documents name, icon, color, is_active, sort_order and description. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a new service area") and adds the domain context ("for Level of Service tracking") that separates it from the many adjacent create_* tools such as create_site or create_system. An agent can identify the target entity without opening the schema.

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 gives a clear prerequisite ("Requires service_areas:write scope") and a concrete follow-up workflow naming two sibling tools (create_service_area_system_class, create_service_area_site). It stops short of any when-not-to-use or alternative guidance (e.g. update_service_area), but the sequencing guidance is unusually actionable.

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