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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the material behavior: the key is scoped to DATA-INTAKE only, can never run a close/settle/move money, is a real credential requiring the explain-then-confirm flow, and the plaintext is returned exactly once and can be revoked in Account. This is consistent with the annotations and far exceeds them.

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?

Purpose and credential scope are front-loaded, and each sentence carries operational weight. It is a single dense block and repeats the label rule already present in the schema, which keeps it from being maximally tight.

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?

For a two-optional-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers what is created, what the return contains (one-time plaintext key plus Zapier steps), what the credential can and cannot do, and how to reverse it. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds procedural meaning — confirm orchestrates a deliberate two-step explain-then-create flow with no re-asking, and label must be omitted unless volunteered. It largely mirrors the schema text rather than adding new syntax or constraints, so it lands just above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: connect an ERP/POS/order system (or Zapier) to Aurgus by creating an API key. It also names the mechanism (Aurgus Open-API /api/v1) and the data directions (transactions in, journal entries out), so an agent can tell this apart from ingest/export siblings.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('user asks to connect their system, integrate their ERP/POS, or set up Zapier'), states a prerequisite ('Requires a connected Aurgus account'), and prescribes the two-call confirm protocol including when to stop re-confirming.

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