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

Annotations only assert readOnly=false, openWorld=true, destructive=false. The description goes well beyond that, disclosing that the result is a draft, is invisible and sends no email until publish_signup, is deletable, and requires the user's Cotlet API key with app access. That is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations can'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?

Core intent is front-loaded, but the draft/invisibility point is repeated three times ('Nothing is visible or sent', 'Nobody can see it and no email goes out', 'It reaches no one'), which wastes space without adding information. Trimming those restatements would sharpen the definition.

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 compensates by stating it returns the sign-up ID, and it covers auth needs, draft semantics, and the follow-up tool. Complete enough to call correctly, though parameter usage and post-publish state transitions remain lightly covered.

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 the schema already documents title, group_id, and description. The description adds only 'empty sign-up' framing and does not explain parameter formats or how group_id/doc fields interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 concrete verb+resource: 'Creates an empty sign-up as a draft and returns its ID.' It distinguishes this from the publish step by naming publish_signup explicitly, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening a 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?

Gives clear workflow context ('Add slots next with add_slots') and implies the draft-then-publish sequence by naming publish_signup as the trigger for visibility. It also pre-empts a confirmation question ('it runs without asking first'), but never states explicit when-not conditions or alternatives beyond the natural next step.

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