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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond listing the body fields, which merely repeats the schema; it does not disclose auth needs, side effects, or what happens on duplicate slug.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the endpoint/body following. It is tersely structured, though the body enumeration partially duplicates the schema rather than adding 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the schema fully documents all parameters. The description covers the create action adequately; its only real gap is the absence of usage guidance, which is minor given the rich structured fields.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter including api_key is already documented in the schema. The description recaps six of the seven body fields (omitting api_key) but adds no format or constraint meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (a Retrieve agent), plus the underlying endpoint POST /agents. This clearly differentiates it from sibling creation tools (routes.create, schemas.create) and from agents.edit/pause.

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 never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as agents.edit or the other create tools. There is no precondition or exclusion guidance; the agent must infer that 'create' means a new agent is needed.

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