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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, and the description adds value by detailing that the token is short-lived and no durable secret is emitted. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide, though it does not elaborate on other side effects (e.g., whether creation is immediate or if there are limits).

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 three short sentences, each adding essential information: the core action and token behavior, long-term auth advice, and scope requirement. No redundant or extraneous text; the most important action is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the main action and output (token), but there is no output schema to fall back on. It fails to explain what the tool returns besides the token (e.g., agent ID), and does not clarify the effect of optional parameters like labels or description. The tool's complexity (5 params) warrants a more complete description.

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?

With schema description coverage at 40% (only 2 of 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema), the description should compensate but does not add any parameter-level information. The description omits explanations for name, labels, and description, leaving these parameters without meaningful guidance.

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 ('Create') and resource ('agent'), and adds key detail about returning a short-lived bootstrap token, making the tool's purpose clear. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling axiorank_issue_token, the token context implies it's for initial creation, and the verb itself distinguishes from read/update/list 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?

The description states the required scope ('agents:write') and advises on post-creation steps for long-term auth, which provides some context. However, it does not explicitly tell when to use this tool versus alternatives like axiorank_issue_token, nor does it mention when not to use it. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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