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

Annotations already flag this as a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds real value beyond them: it clarifies that nothing is sent externally, that the record is editable/deletable afterward, and that a Cotlet API key with app access is required. Reversibility and auth requirements are the kind of context annotations don't carry.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by required fields, behavioral caveats, and auth needs in a tight sequence. Slight redundancy between 'Add a contractor' and 'Creates a contractor record', but no filler.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, required fields, side-effect behavior, and auth, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The only minor gap is that it says nothing about the return value or resulting identifier.

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 all 8 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the three required fields (name, postal code, city), adding no syntax, format, or default guidance beyond the schema, 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 and resource ('Add a contractor to your iFirma list. Creates a contractor record.'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling ifirma_list_contractors. An agent can tell immediately that this is the create operation.

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?

Gives some context ('runs without asking first', required fields) but never names an alternative tool or states explicit when/when-not conditions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out, so it sits at minimum viable.

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