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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as whether duplicate names are allowed, whether creation can fail on duplicates, or what happens after creation.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler and is front-loaded. However, it is so minimal that it does not earn its place for a tool with seven parameters and no other explanatory material.

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?

The description only covers the core action and scope. It lacks guidance on required fields, parameter meanings, validation behavior, or expected outcomes, and there is no output schema to compensate. An agent would have to infer most usage details from parameter names.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters, including the required 'name' field. The tool's seven parameters are left entirely to the agent to interpret from names and types alone, which is insufficient for a create operation.

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 states a specific action ('Create') and a clear resource ('consulting client'), plus a scoping qualifier ('account-private'). This distinguishes it from related resources like create_consulting_engagement and from update/list variants, though the meaning of 'account-private' is not explained.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_consulting_client or list_consulting_clients. The intended context is only implicit from the name and resource type.

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