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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (mutation via readOnlyHint=false, non-idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the required 'vendors:write' scope, which is exactly the kind of auth context annotations cannot convey. It stops short of describing side effects or what the created entity returns.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded ahead of the authorization requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 12-parameter mutation tool, the description covers purpose and the required scope, and the schema fully documents all fields while annotations convey the safety profile. No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. It is largely complete, lacking only deeper behavioral detail.

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%, so all 12 parameters are documented in the schema (including the required 'name' and behaviors like URL normalization). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Create') and resource ('vendor'), which lets an agent distinguish it from create_asset, create_manufacturer, and other create_* siblings. However, it offers no explicit differentiation from close siblings like create_vendor_site_assignment beyond the resource name.

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 implies usage (creating a vendor) and states a prerequisite scope ('Requires vendors:write scope') but gives no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives or any exclusion conditions. Usage is only weakly implied.

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