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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, which covers the write/safety profile. The description only adds the HTTP method and endpoint, which is mechanical rather than behavioral. It does not disclose auth requirements, what side effects occur, or response behavior. The 'Postman JSON body' reference is vague.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler. It efficiently conveys the endpoint and body type.

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 is thin for a tool with a flexible object payload. It references a 'Postman JSON body' without explaining what that is or what fields are required, and it lacks any context about prerequisites or what happens after creation. While the output schema exists, the tool description alone would leave an agent needing external Postman documentation.

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 fully covers the single 'extra' parameter with examples (name, email, package). The tool description adds no additional meaning about payload structure or syntax, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage is appropriate.

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 specifies the exact action ('Create a whitelabel client') and the HTTP endpoint (POST /v1/whitelabel/create-client), making the purpose unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'create-whitelabel-package' tool by explicitly naming 'client'.

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 clearly implies this tool is for creating a whitelabel client, but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a whitelabel package first) or contrast with list-whitelabel-clients or update-like tools.

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