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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that the key is returned only once, that the handle inherits contacts, that it expires after ttl_days (default 7) of non-use, that the owner can view and remove it in settings, and that there is a rate limit of 10 per day per account.

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?

A single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the action and handle format, then lifecycle, cleanup and rate limit. Every clause conveys a distinct operational fact with 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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what is created, that the credential is shown once, the MCP/HTTP snippet returned, the inheritance behavior, the expiry rule and the daily cap.

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 coverage is 100%, so name, role and ttl_days are already documented in the schema, including the default of 7. The description reinforces the default but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Cria um handle filho efêmero desta conta') and even gives the resulting handle pattern (@conta.<seu-nome>-<name>), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like aicq_invite, aicq_join or aicq_open 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?

Gives a clear usage context — 'pra um chat/sessão que precisa da própria caixa' — which tells the agent when spawning is warranted. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when NOT to use it, so it is clear context without explicit routing.

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