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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Creates nothing' and 'a human provisions from the spec.' This adds useful human-in-the-loop context beyond the raw annotations. No contradiction is present.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the critical side-effect clarification ('Creates nothing') is placed second, making it unmissable.

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 an output schema present and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential workflow: draft a proposed account setup, define limits, and leave provisioning to a human. Optional parameters are not detailed, but their names and the overall spec context make the tool usable.

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 must compensate. It explains the spend-envelope parameters as 'per-payment / daily caps' (mapping to suggestedPerPaymentCents and suggestedDailyCents), but it does not clarify 'purpose', 'agentName', or 'companyId' beyond their self-explanatory names.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Draft') and resource ('proposed agent-account setup') and clearly separates the tool from actual provisioning with 'Creates nothing — a human provisions from the spec.' This distinguishes it from sibling account/agent tools and makes its scope concrete.

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?

Clearly establishes the context of use: drafting a proposal for human review rather than creating a real account. It does not name explicit alternative tools or list when-not-to-use conditions, but the non-creation caveat is a strong exclusion that most agents need.

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