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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that Lexware Office auto-creates a debtor/creditor account and re-suggests the contact on future documents, that nothing is sent externally ('reaches no one'), that it needs no confirmation, and that it requires a Cotlet API key with app access. This is genuinely useful behavioral context.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and each sentence carries information, but the middle sentence ('It reaches no one and is undone by archiving...') is convoluted and the API-key line is slightly clunky. Still compact with 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 annotations covering safety and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, side effects, reversibility, and auth. The only gap is that, with no output schema, it never says what is returned (e.g., the new contact ID).

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 seven parameters (name, role enum, address fields, email) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Save a new customer or supplier,' and clarifies the effect of creating a master-data contact. It distinguishes itself from read siblings like lexware-office_list_contacts by being an explicit create operation, though it never names a sibling alternative.

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 implies the use case (adding a new customer/supplier to master data) but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no alternatives are named. The reader must infer that this is the tool for onboarding a new business partner.

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