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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds genuinely useful governance context — that MCP approval requirements are org-configurable while business workflow approvals always apply — which tells the agent the call may be gated. However it says nothing about what happens on duplicate fieldKey, what gets created, or whether the response includes an id.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, no padding. The second sentence is boilerplate-adjacent but still carries real approval semantics, so little is wasted — though the first sentence gestures at "the same business service as the screen" without resolving anything.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no prose, but for a nested nine-field creation payload with 0% schema coverage the description leaves the agent guessing about the tab/field relationship, required fieldType selection, and uniqueness constraints. The approval note is helpful but does not cover the operational gaps.

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 nested object with nine sub-properties (tabId, label, fieldKey, helpText, metadata, fieldType, sortOrder, isRequired, defaultValue), none documented anywhere. The description supplies zero parameter semantics, so the agent must infer the meaning of tabId, fieldKey, and the fieldType enum from names 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?

The verb+resource is stated ("Create diligence_field"), but "diligence_field" is domain jargon left undefined, and nothing distinguishes it from near-identical siblings like create_custom_field, create_diligence_tab, or update_diligence_field. An agent knows it creates something, but not what that something is or where it lives.

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 on when to use this versus create_custom_field or create_diligence_tab, and no prerequisites such as the tab needing to exist first. The only contextual sentence addresses approvals, not tool selection.

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