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

Annotations already indicate write intent (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness. The description adds the endpoint and that it uses a Postman JSON body, but does not disclose details like required permissions, idempotency, or response behavior. It captures the essential behavior without contradicting annotations.

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, focused sentence with no redundant information. It front-loads the action and resource, then provides the method and payload source efficiently.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, annotations for safety, and a single parameter, the description provides adequate context: it specifies the endpoint and where to find the payload. It could elaborate on prerequisites or response handling, but for a create operation with an open-world parameter, it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single 'extra' parameter, with a description referencing Postman documentation. The tool description also mentions 'Postman JSON body', adding slight context. However, the actual contents of the payload are not described beyond 'as documented in Postman', which is minimal but acceptable given the free-form object.

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 clearly states the action 'Create' and the resource 'whitelabel package', with an explicit endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create-whitelabel-client' and 'list-whitelabel-packages' by including the package-specific endpoint.

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 phrase 'Create a whitelabel package' implies when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools (e.g., 'list-whitelabel-packages' for listing). This is an implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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