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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses email verification, the inactive API key until link click, the key appearing in the portal, and the unlock of search_companies and data_records. It also flags the license acceptance requirement, so the agent understands the side effects and gating behavior.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, activation behavior, and required inputs with the critical compliance caveat. Information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 no-annotations, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what the tool creates, the verification/activation flow, the required inputs, and the compliance constraint. It does not specify response/return details, but that is not needed to invoke correctly. One small gap is that it does not state what the agent should do if the user has not accepted the license.

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 describes only password and license_accepted (50% coverage). The description compensates by explaining all four parameters in context: user's email, user-chosen password of 8+ characters, company name, and explicit license confirmation. It adds the requirement that license_accepted only be true upon explicit user agreement, beyond the schema's wording.

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 action and resource: 'Create a free Engagemii data account.' It also explains the account activation flow, which distinguishes data_signup from data-access siblings like search_companies and data_records.

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 establishes the context: use it to create a new data account and obtain an API key. It does not name alternatives, but no sibling tool overlaps with signup, and the trigger conditions (user email, chosen password, company name, explicit license acceptance) are explicit. A small deduction for not explicitly saying 'use when the user wants to sign up.'

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