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

Annotations only declare the generic mutating profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false); the description adds genuinely new behavior — a confirm-gated two-phase write whose first call returns a plan rather than creating anything. It also discloses the ownership side effect ('assigned to you'). It doesn't say what the second call returns or what happens on duplicate names.

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 short chunks, front-loaded with the action and scope, then enum lists, then the confirm requirement last. No filler, though the enum listing is dense and could be more scannable.

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 confirm flow is covered. For a mutating 8-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the description still omits permissions/firm_id requirements, duplicate-handling, and the effect of the second call — gaps an agent would notice.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it fills the biggest gap by enumerating allowed values for client_type (INDIVIDUAL/FAMILY/ENTITY) and pipeline_stage (LEAD/PROSPECT/NEGOTIATION/ONBOARDING), which the schema does not constrain at all, and explains confirm. It leaves firm_id, display_name, and the contact fields (email/phone/notes) undiscussed.

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 a client or prospect to your firm's book') and adds scope ('assigned to you'), which separates it from update_eam_client and convert_prospect conceptually. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'Needs confirm=true: the first call returns a plan' line gives concrete invocation guidance for the two-step flow, and enum values are listed. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over convert_prospect or update_eam_client, nor any stated prerequisite such as firm membership.

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