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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a critical behavior: same-email linking prevents duplication. However, it omits other important behaviors such as error handling, idempotency guarantees, required field implications, and return value. This partial disclosure is valuable but incomplete for a write operation.

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 just two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no superfluous information. Every word earns its place: the first sentence states the core action, the second adds a key behavioral nuance.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and annotations are absent, the description offers far too little: no guidance on which parameters are required beyond the schema, no indication of response format, no failure scenarios, and no usage context. The one de-duplication detail is useful but insufficient to fully understand the tool's behavior and invocation.

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 input schema has zero description coverage, and the description adds meaning only for the email parameter via the linking behavior. The other 11 parameters (rut, name, lastName, notes, phone, apiKey, comuna, orgSlug, idempotencyKey, proveedorTitularId, direccion) remain semantically opaque, leaving the agent to guess from names alone. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new client in the organization.' It adds a distinctive behavior (linking with an existing email instead of duplicating), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like client_update or client_list. The purpose is unambiguous and contextually rich.

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 implies when to use the tool (when creating a client) and hints at the de-duplication benefit, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It provides no direct comparison with sibling tools like client_update or cierre_crear_cliente. This is acceptable but minimal.

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