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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, yet the description does not explain the consequences: whether re-submitting creates duplicates, whether an email match merges or errors, or what side effects (quote/invoice linkage) a customer creation has. For a non-idempotent, destructive, open-world write, that is the most valuable context and it is missing.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, which is good, but brevity here comes at the cost of under-specification rather than being earned concision.

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?

Nine parameters, no output schema, and a mutation flagged destructive/non-idempotent demand more disclosure than one fragment. The agent is left without knowing what is returned (new customer ID?) or how to recover from a duplicate.

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 only 56% and several parameters (phone, mobile, city, postal_code) have no schema description, so the description needs to compensate but adds nothing. It mentions 'contact details and a physical address' generically without mapping to fields or clarifying that comma-separated emails are supported.

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?

The description names the resource ('New customer profile') and the optional facets, but it is a noun phrase with no explicit verb – creation is inferred from the tool name/title rather than stated. It does implicitly separate this from list_customers, but it never distinguishes create from update-type operations.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus a sibling (e.g. list_customers to check for an existing match first), no prerequisites, and no mention of duplicate handling. The word 'optionally' is the only guidance, and the schema already encodes required vs. optional.

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