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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context the annotations cannot: no text message is sent and nothing is charged, and the status_token must be retained for every later call. That is exactly the side-effect and state-carrying information an agent needs for a non-idempotent creation call.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the identifiers to retain, then the precondition, then the side-effect reassurance, then the next tool. Every sentence carries distinct operational value with no repetition of the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return contract (setup_id, status_token, setup_url) and does so clearly. Preconditions, side effects, and the follow-up call are all covered, leaving nothing essential unstated for a five-parameter creation tool.

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 100%, so all five parameters (including optional agent_name and referral_code) are already documented in the schema; this is the baseline-3 case. The description adds return-value semantics (setup_url as a fallback for relaying a code) but no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 (creates a BuzzMeBro setup for the person) and immediately names the artifacts it produces (setup_id, status_token, setup_url). An agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like check_building without opening the schema.

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 states the precondition ('Only call it after check_building said available and the person has asked you to set it up') and routes forward to 'Next: send_phone_code.' Both when-to-use and what-comes-next are spelled out, with check_building named as the gating alternative.

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