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

Annotations already convey idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: accounts are created immediately with no verification and no fee, duplicate calls return the same account, and the returned onboarding_token is required for later calls. This goes beyond what annotations or the schema state.

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?

The description is information-dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, immediate outputs, verification nuance, idempotency, and the critical onboarding_token. The main purpose is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of annotation data.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of explaining return values: wallets on Base and Solana, a verification link, and an onboarding_token. It also covers the idempotency behavior and the bank-rails condition, making the tool safe and easy to invoke correctly with just the email parameter.

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 the baseline is 3. The description mostly repeats parameter information already present in the schema (email receives the welcome letter, phone is optional), and it does not materially deepen the meaning of either parameter. It adds no param-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Open a Glide account for a person.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling query tools (check_status, get_funding_details, get_wallets) by being the account-creation action, and it goes on to list concrete outputs that make its purpose unambiguous.

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 clear practical guidance: it is safe to call twice with the same email and returns the same account, and the verification link is optional unless bank rails are needed. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the sibling names make the choice obvious, so this is a minor gap rather than a serious one.

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