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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the email-confirmation gate ('until the user clicks the confirmation link... nothing is emailed'), the exceptions (100 checks, Slack and webhooks work), the secret-handling requirement (store as DOORMAN_KEY, never commit), and the fact that it also creates a first form. These are real side effects and constraints an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the core action and sequences the workflow (ask for email → account creation → confirmation email → key handling). It is somewhat dense and run-on with several parentheticals, but nearly every clause carries operational information.

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 multi-step, no-output-schema onboarding tool, the description covers the return values (form id, action URL, api_key), the post-call handling, the existing-user fallback, and the delivery caveat before email confirmation. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema, including the mode enum's watch/enforce semantics. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond echoing email and the returned api_key, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource: 'Create a Doorman account for the user with a first form and an API key.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings like doorman_create_form and doorman_whoami by making clear this is the new-user onboarding path that bundles account + first form + key.

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?

Explicitly states prerequisites and exclusions: 'Ask the user for their email first' and 'Only for new users: if they already have an account, ask for a key instead.' This gives a clear when-to-use and a when-not-to-use with the alternative action named.

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