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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds real context: the two-phase plan/confirm flow and what the no-op behavior looks like for already-converted clients. It doesn't say whether the operation is reversible or what confirmation actually commits.

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?

Roughly four sentences, front-loaded with the outcome and then layering defaults, idempotency, and the confirm gate. No redundant restatement of the tool name or 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the plan-first flow plus idempotent behavior covers the main unknowns for a destructive write. The unexplained firm_id and the lack of any permission/authorization notes keep it from being fully complete.

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%, so the description carries the burden and does so for the tricky parameters: entity_type's allowed values (PERSON, COMPANY, TRUST, FOUNDATION) and its default derivation from client type, household_name's default, and confirm's role. firm_id is left entirely unexplained.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Convert a prospect into an active client') and enumerates the concrete side effects: household creation, primary entity creation, and status set to ACTIVE. That makes the tool distinct from pure setters like update_eam_client, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the nearby create_eam_client sibling.

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 the operational pattern explicitly: 'Needs confirm=true: the first call returns a plan.' It also explains the idempotent edge case ('A client already converted is returned as it is'). It stops short of saying when to prefer this over create_eam_client.

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