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

Annotations supply readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and the description adds real context beyond them: nothing is sent to anyone, no money moves, so it runs without confirmation, plus the Cotlet API-key requirement. It does not detail failure modes or idempotency, but the safety/auth profile is well covered.

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 purpose, then the return value, the safety profile, the duplicate-avoidance step, and the auth prerequisite in a logical order. Six short sentences are all functional, though slightly more verbose than strictly necessary.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly describes the return (account_id for use in other tools), covers the auth prerequisite and the duplicate-check workflow, and discloses side-effect behavior for a mutation tool. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 the six parameters (name, status, city, email, country, division) are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'name, status and optional address and email' restates the schema without adding syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 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 (Add/Create), the resource (a relation, explicitly defined as customer or supplier), and the scope (to a division). An agent can distinguish this from search_relations and list_divisions without inspecting either schema.

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 names the alternative sibling ('Search with search_relations before creating to avoid a duplicate'), which gives clear pre-invocation context. It stops short of stating any when-not-to-use conditions or other alternatives, so it falls just below a 5.

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