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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds real value by saying the record is created with company defaults exactly as the New Customer form does, and that nothing is sent externally. However, it never warns that repeat calls will create duplicate customers (non-idempotent) — the single most important behavioral risk here — so it doesn't go far beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the create action and the default-behavior note; almost every clause earns its place. The closing fragment 'It reaches no one and stays inside Tradify' is grammatical shorthand that takes a moment to parse.

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 9-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description omits the single fact an agent most needs next: what is returned (a customer id?) so the new customer can be referenced by create_quote, create_job or schedule_appointment. Duplicate-suppression behavior is also unaddressed, leaving meaningful gaps against the tool's complexity.

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 56%, so the description needs to compensate but largely restates what is there: the comma-separated multi-address rule for email and 'quotes and invoices go there' duplicate the schema's own wording. Nothing is said about phone vs mobile, city, state or postal_code, leaving those four parameters undocumented in both places.

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 (create a new customer profile) plus the optional payload shape. It explains the resulting state (active customer with default price group, document theme and tax settings), which distinguishes it from list_customers, but it doesn't name which sibling to use before/after it.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the reader can infer this is the step before create_quote/create_job, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use is given, and the sibling list (list_customers, create_job, create_quote) is never referenced. The one contextual clue is 'It reaches no one and stays inside Tradify', which frames the call as non-notifying.

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