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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent write operation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention required inputs, validation behavior, side effects, or what happens on duplicate registrations. With annotations present the bar is lower, but the description still contributes almost nothing about the tool's runtime behavior.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: one sentence that immediately states the action and object. There is no filler or repetition. However, given the complexity of the tool, the extreme brevity comes at the cost of useful context, so it is not fully 'appropriately sized.'

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 40-parameter creation tool with write semantics and multiple closely related siblings, a one-sentence description is under-specified. It omits required parameters, enum constraints, date conventions, and any sense of what a successful registration returns. An output schema exists, but the description still lacks enough context for an agent to confidently select and invoke 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 description provides zero parameter-level meaning, while the schema covers only 38% of 40 parameters. It does not highlight the four required fields (name, roast_date, roast_level, process_type) or clarify any ambiguous optional fields. The schema does contain some property descriptions, but the tool description itself fails to compensate for the large undocumented surface.

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 uses a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('a new bag of coffee beans'), making the core action clear. The word 'new' also suggests creation rather than updating an existing bean entry, which helps distinguish it from siblings like update_bean. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or mention the broader context.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_bean or list_beans. The only implied usage signal is 'new,' which weakly suggests this is for adding bags, not modifying or querying them. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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