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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does this thoroughly: it reveals that the tool sends a verification email, that calling it again re-sends the email, that no authentication is required, and that account capabilities depend on verification state. It also clarifies that acceptedTerms must reflect the principal's actual consent.

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 long but densely informative. Each sentence earns its place by covering workflow sequencing, state behavior, parameter requirements, or principal-agent semantics. It is slightly heavier than necessary, but the complexity of the onboarding flow justifies most of the length.

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 multi-step onboarding tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the workflow, state machine, required parameters, and next step very well. The main gap is that it does not describe the response shape, such as whether an account ID is returned or what status object the caller should expect, which would be useful for an agent invoking this tool.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does. It lists every required and optional parameter with meaningful context: accountType values, phone format (+CC.number), country as 2-letter, the required contact subfields, and the audit-trail purpose of principalReference. This goes far beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 verb and resource, 'Create a new OSIR customer account,' and immediately distinguishes it from the follow-up verifyAccount step. It clearly identifies this as the first step of onboarding, so an agent can differentiate it from sibling tools like createContact or verifyAccount.

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 explicitly says no authentication is required, this is step 1 of onboarding, and the next step is verifyAccount with the emailed code. It also explains when the tool can and cannot be used by describing PENDING_VERIFICATION vs ACTIVE state restrictions, giving clear guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives.

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