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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: ownership requirement, email binding restrictions (only Google sign-in, not API/MCP), the code appearing only in this result, and cost (Free). This is exceptionally transparent and leaves no critical behavioral ambiguity.

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 compact yet information-dense, with each sentence serving a purpose. It opens with the core action and ownership, then systematically covers parameters and behavioral nuances, ending with cost. No redundancy or 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 tool with 5 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers most essentials: constraints, defaults, binding behavior, and result handling. The only gap is the unmentioned api_key parameter, and error conditions are not discussed, but overall it is sufficient for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains max_uses (1-100000, default 1), expires_in_days (1-365 optional), note (user-provided), and email (binds to person). However, it omits any explanation of the api_key parameter, which remains undocumented in both schema and description.

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 explicitly states 'Owner only: make an access code to hand out' with a clear verb+resource, distinguishing it from siblings like list_access_codes and revoke_access_code. The purpose is unambiguous and the ownership restriction is immediately front-loaded.

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?

It clearly defines when to use the tool (creating a new access code) and provides contextual guidance like 'Owner only' and the email binding behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is obvious and the description gives enough context for an agent to decide.

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