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

Beyond the idempotent and non-destructive annotations, the description states concrete non-effects: it opens no account, creates no account number, and moves no money. It also directs the agent to report this 'intention ONLY' status, adding useful communication behavior.

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 sentences, no filler, with the primary action front-loaded and the clarifying non-effects immediately after. The reporting instruction is brief and earns its place.

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, annotations, and a description that covers purpose, scope, and non-effects, an agent has what it needs to invoke the tool correctly. The only minor omission is explicit trigger conditions, but that is not required for such a simple intent-recording call.

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 description maps most nested intent fields to plain-language concepts: openWhenEinReady ('whether wants... opened once EIN arrives'), cardPreference and shipping ('card preference, where cards should be sent'), and expectedMonthlySpend. It does not mention recordedAt, and formationId is left to the schema's wrapper description, but the compensation is sufficient.

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: 'Records whether the founder wants a business bank account opened...' and enumerates the captured dimensions (card preference, shipping, monthly spend). It also explicitly frames the tool as intention-only, preventing confusion with any actual account-opening or card-issuing action.

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?

No alternative tool is named, but the description gives clear context for when to call: when capturing banking intent tied to EIN arrival. The 'intention ONLY' exclusion tells the agent not to use it for actual account setup, though it stops short of naming the alternative.

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