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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses that a bootstrap account is written, that no email is sent, that nothing is charged, and that there is no quota spend. It also surfaces the Authorization: Bearer tp_… requirement that would otherwise cause a silent failure, and enumerates the response fields.

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-loaded with the core action and its outputs, then the edge cases (no email, no charge) and the auth/REST guidance. It is dense but every clause carries operational value; only the trailing 'Former name: agent_bootstrap' alias note is marginal.

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 two-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: the auth requirement, the return-field list, the no-side-effect guarantees, and the follow-up call sequence. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 the schema already documents both email and label, including the disposable-domain rejection. The description adds only that email is an address, so per the rubric the baseline of 3 applies rather than a penalty or a bonus.

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 ('Start zero-human onboarding from an email address'), names the artifact it writes (bootstrap account) and the exact return fields. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like manage_billing or create_api_key, which it explicitly casts as follow-on steps rather than alternatives.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not path ('When you have no tp_ key yet, use REST POST /api/agents/bootstrap instead') plus the auth precondition for this endpoint. It also sequences the tool correctly by naming the follow-up actions (manage_billing action=machine_pay, create_api_key) and their conditions.

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