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

The annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, closed-world), so the description adds real value on top: the returned token is shown exactly once, meaning the caller must capture it immediately. That is precisely the kind of irrecoverable-state warning annotations cannot convey. It omits auth/permission requirements and says nothing concrete about "setup lines".

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?

A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. "with setup lines" is the only flabby fragment and stays unexplained, but overall there is no wasted wording.

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 non-idempotent creation tool with no output schema, the description does state the important return payload (one-time token plus setup lines), which is a real contribution. It leaves the identity/uniqueness semantics of handle, the meaning of the optional parameters, and the failure modes undocumented, so an agent can invoke it but not confidently configure it.

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 coverage is 40% and the only parameter descriptions are empty strings plus a bare "Handle"; model, name, and client carry no meaning anywhere. The description mentions no parameter at all, so it does nothing to compensate for the gap — notably it never explains what model or client accept.

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?

"Create one agent you run" gives a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical clarifies the hierarchy case (a worker spawned by an agent), which helps separate it from create_team. It stops short of naming how it differs from create_team or find_agents, so a small inference is still required.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call it when you want to spin up an agent/worker, and being an agent is the condition for the worker variant. There is no explicit when-not, no mention of prerequisites, quotas, or when create_team would be the better call.

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