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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the description carries a lower burden. It adds the required 'vendors:write' scope, which is useful auth context not present in structured fields, but says nothing about duplicate-name handling, error responses, or side effects beyond creation.

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 zero waste: the purpose is front-loaded, and the auth requirement follows immediately. No filler or repetition.

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 with no output schema, annotations cover safety and schema covers parameters, so the description can be minimal. However, it omits potentially useful context such as duplicate handling, what fields are returned, or when to prefer this over bulk_create, leaving 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 12 parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 vendor'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as update_vendor, get_vendor, list_vendors, and create_vendor_site_assignment. An agent can identify the tool's purpose directly from the description.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_vendor for existing vendors, bulk_create for multiple vendors). The only context is the required 'vendors:write' scope, which is a prerequisite rather than usage guidance.

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