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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral rule — a customer with no company is silently treated as a private consumer — but says nothing about duplicate-name handling, required permissions, or what happens to the record on failure.

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 compact sentences with the creation action and the required field front-loaded. The parenthetical list of optional fields largely duplicates the schema, which is minor waste against an otherwise efficient definition.

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 non-idempotent creation tool with a nested object parameter and no output schema, the definition is adequate: safety annotations plus the private-consumer rule cover the essentials. It still leaves open whether a repeat call creates a duplicate and whether the created customer's identifier is returned, both of which affect how an agent sequences calls.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one real semantic beyond the schema (missing company implies a private consumer) but otherwise just restates which fields exist and which are required, and omits any mention of status, customerType, customerSince or lastContactAt.

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?

"Creates a new customer in the CRM" gives a specific verb and resource, and the note about company-less customers being private consumers clarifies the object model. It does not explicitly contrast itself with updateCustomer or the fetch* siblings, so the differentiator is implicit in the name rather than stated.

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 says which fields are required vs optional and how the company field changes interpretation, but never states when to use this tool versus updateCustomer or the customer-context fetchers. An agent must infer that creation (not update) is the correct entry point from the tool name alone.

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