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

Annotations (openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are present, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it clarifies that only identity is created, no holdings/securities are created, and the stakeholder will not appear in the investor pipeline. This goes beyond what the annotations convey and helps the agent predict side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the key distinction ('IDENTITY ONLY'), and every sentence earns its place. It is concise, clear, and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a single object parameter with many nested fields), the description adequately explains the tool's scope and pitfalls, and an output schema exists to cover return values. It could mention required fields or enum constraints, but those are visible in the input schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already documents the nested fields with descriptions (e.g., name, type, email), so the description need not repeat them. However, the description mentions a subset of fields ('name, type, email, metadata') without elaborating on the full object structure, and schema coverage is listed as 0% for the top-level parameter, so it adds only modest semantic value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Adds') and explicitly scopes the resource as 'stakeholder IDENTITY ONLY', which clearly distinguishes it from related tools by stating it does NOT create any holding/security or appear in the investor pipeline. This directly addresses sibling differentiation (e.g., RecordCapTableInvestment).

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'For an investor contributing capital via SAFE or priced shares, use RecordCapTableInvestment instead'. It also states what this tool will not do, giving clear exclusion criteria.

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