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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds essentially nothing beyond that: no statement about duplicate-person behavior, required field validation failures, or side effects. The one extra sentence about crm-schema duplicates the input schema's custom_fields warning verbatim in spirit.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, zero padding. It could arguably fold the schema hint into a single clause without loss, but there is no wasted sentence.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the schema fully documents parameters. Still, for a non-idempotent create against a CRM with a companion update/delete and a likely duplicate-check workflow, the description says nothing about post-creation behavior or how to avoid creating duplicates.

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 100% and the custom_fields property already spells out the crm-schema prerequisite and exact-field-code requirement in detail. The description's mention of crm-schema restates that; it adds no semantics for name or company_id beyond what the schema provides. 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 ('Create a new person (contact) in the CRM'), which distinguishes it from create-company-tool and create-opportunity-tool by entity type. It does not explicitly differentiate from update-people-tool or create-people-tool sibling semantics, but the verb carries most of the weight.

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?

Provides one concrete prerequisite: read the crm-schema resource to discover custom fields. However it gives no guidance on when to use this versus update-people-tool, nor on whether to check for an existing person first — even though the tool is explicitly non-idempotent, which makes that question material.

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