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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool generates a Client Compass automatically and requires a profession, but it does not disclose error handling (e.g., if the user lacks a profession) or side effects beyond compass generation. It is partially transparent but could be more detailed.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences, no redundant information, and front-loads the core action and key feature. Every word earns its place.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is sparse. It does not explain return values, error scenarios, or behavior when optional parameters like 'dob' are omitted. The automatic compass generation is a notable feature but other aspects are left unclear.

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% with detailed descriptions for each parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional context beyond what the schema already provides, so it adds limited value.

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 clearly states the tool creates a new person (client) and mentions the automatic generation of their Client Compass, which is a unique feature. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like batch_create_persons, which could cause confusion when deciding which to use.

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 specifies a prerequisite (user must have a profession set) but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. This leaves some ambiguity for the AI agent.

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