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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that no outbound mail is sent and that a bearer bootstrap token is produced for the next call. However, it does not cover token expiration, invalidation of prior tokens, or required permissions, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the no-mail caveat is immediately useful, and the next-step instruction earns its place.

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 gives enough to start onboarding and route to the next API call, but for a tool with no output schema and no annotations it omits useful details such as response shape, token lifetime, error cases, and the meaning of the optional label. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'email' identifies the user for token creation and implies the token is returned for the next step, but it says nothing about the optional 'label' parameter or any format/constraints. Compensation is only partial.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'create bootstrap token from email' and names the exact workflow context ('zero-human onboarding'). It also distinguishes itself from the likely sibling by explicitly handing off to 'POST /api/billing/machine-pay with Bearer bootstrapToken'.

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 scopes when this tool is used ('Start zero-human onboarding') and gives the immediate follow-up call. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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