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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world mutation. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: MCP approval requirements are configurable by the org administrator while business workflow approvals always apply, telling the agent the call may be gated. It does not say what happens on duplicate creation, what validation errors arise, or what partial-failure behavior looks like.

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 with no padding, so it is compact. However, the opening phrase is opaque internal jargon placed where the most useful information should be, so brevity comes at the cost of front-loading anything actionable.

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 mutation with a very large nested input object and no schema descriptions, the description needed to at least characterize the profile domain (investment criteria) and required-vs-optional expectations. It supplies approval context but leaves the actual data model completely unexplained. The output schema exists, so return values need not be covered.

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 single parameter is a deeply nested 'data' object with roughly 80 fields (name, IRR constraints, geographies, stakeholder fields, validation fields). The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, leaving the agent to infer every field from names and enums alone.

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?

"Create criteria_profile" only restates the tool name, and the rest of the sentence ("using the same business service as the screen") is an internal implementation reference that tells an agent nothing about what a criteria profile is or how creation differs from sibling update_criteria_profile/list_criteria_profile. No specific resource detail or sibling differentiation is provided.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus update_criteria_profile, delete_criteria_profile, or any other sibling, and no prerequisites or preconditions are given. The approval sentence describes a system condition, not a usage rule the agent can act on.

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