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

With no annotations, the description takes the full burden and delivers: it discloses side effects (welcome email, account creation), security-sensitive JWT handling, 409/429 error behavior, idempotency-key requirements, and multi-server session behavior. It also warns that the server does not generate idempotency keys and that every response includes _request_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?

The description is long, but it is organized into labeled sections (PROACTIVE auth_token, RECOVERY, PERMISSIONS, MULTI-SERVER, rate limits) that make it scannable. Every section conveys load-bearing operational guidance; the length is justified by the tool's complexity, though a few points could be tightened.

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 15-parameter, 4-required, no-annotation tool with output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers success paths, all major error classes with concrete recovery actions, permission requirements, rate-limit backoff, multi-server routing, and security constraints on token handling. An agent has enough context to call this correctly and recover from failures.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the most decision-critical parameters: auth_token, email, idempotency_key, website_url, and name. Some remaining parameters like dry_run, goal, phone, and company are left to their names/schema, but the description covers the non-obvious inter-parameter constraints well.

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 opens with a precise verb-resource pair: 'Create/reuse an account and the first tracking container in one agent-safe call.' It clearly distinguishes fresh-email registration from authenticated reuse, and its naming of auth_token behavior separates it from sibling tools like get_container and list_containers.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: pass auth_token instead of email for signed-in users, never pass name/email alongside auth_token, and stop without calling other MCP tools on multi_client_ambiguous. It also names alternatives like account recovery URLs and outlines permissions prerequisites for container creation.

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