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

With annotations declaring destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description should disclose what gets destroyed or modified. Instead, it only says 'save optional company information,' which could be interpreted as an upsert or overwrite. It doesn't clarify whether existing data is replaced, what happens if fields are omitted, or error conditions. The annotations are not contradicted, but the description adds little behavioral context beyond them.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and context.

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?

Given 10 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and a destructive annotation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral implications of destructiveness, or return values. For a mutation tool with many inputs, this is inadequate.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'company information' and none of the 10 parameters. It doesn't explain what 'userId' is, what format 'employeeCount' takes, or how 'outputFormat' affects the response. With so many parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to add meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'save optional company information for a pending Sulvo signup.' It's clear what the tool does and it's identifiable as part of the signup flow. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like 'submit_sulvo_signup_documents' or 'create_sulvo_signup_account', which are also signup-related.

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 implies usage context ('step 3' of signup, 'pending Sulvo signup') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it list prerequisites such as needing an existing pending signup. It gives some guidance but leaves the agent to infer the exact conditions.

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