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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral information: idempotency within an open inquiry window and the constraint that only inquiries opened through this service are visible to the webhook and GetKycStatus. It does not cover failure modes or lifecycle details, but the disclosed traits are material.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action and return value are in the first sentence, followed by idempotency and a brief rationale. The final sentence is useful context but is slightly more about service architecture than direct invocation guidance.

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?

While the output schema covers return shapes and the description states the primary purpose, the optional parameters (templateId, redirectUri, trustedDeviceId) remain semantically under-specified. Given four parameters and only 50% schema coverage, the description leaves agents without enough context to confidently populate optional fields.

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 input schema has only 50% description coverage, with templateId and redirectUri undocumented, and the description does not explain any parameter meaning beyond the hosted flow URL implication. The description does not compensate for the schema's sparse parameter documentation.

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 states a specific action ('creates a provider inquiry') and a distinctive output ('returns the hosted flow URL'). It also differentiates from kyc_get_kyc_status by noting that only inquiries opened via this service are readable by the webhook and GetKycStatus.

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 provides clear context for when the tool is relevant, especially the Mac-app/MCP rationale and the relationship to webhook and GetKycStatus visibility. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use conditions or name an alternative creation path, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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