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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses the return payload (form id, action URL, api_key), requires credential handling ('store it as DOORMAN_KEY... never commit it'), and explains the pre-confirmation state ('nothing is emailed to them; 100 checks; Slack and webhooks work'). These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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-loaded with the core action and credential guidance, and most sentences earn their place. The parenthetical about '100 checks; Slack and webhooks work' is slightly tangential and the passage runs long, but nothing is wasted or circular.

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-effect provisioning tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates by explaining both the side effects (form creation, confirmation email) and the return values. An agent has everything needed to invoke and handle the result correctly.

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 schema already documents all five parameters, including the mode enum's watch/enforce tradeoff. The description adds only a hint about email ('Ask the user for their email first') and does not clarify site_context or site_url beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a Doorman account... with a first form and an API key') and its scope. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like doorman_create_form, which acts on an existing account rather than provisioning one.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not: 'Only for new users: if they already have an account, ask for a key instead,' plus the sequencing instruction 'Ask the user for their email first.' It stops short of naming the sibling (e.g. doorman_whoami) an agent should call to determine whether an account already exists.

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