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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral load and delivers: unauthenticated access, what is returned (key + namespace), the short-lived/single-use nature of the handoff_token, the one-time redemption requirement via host.redeem, and the security rationale (a leaked transcript carries a dead credential). It also confirms the raw-key path remains unchanged.

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?

Front-loads the core action and auth state in the first two sentences, then the recommendation. The security-rationale clause is slightly long but earns its place by justifying the recommendation rather than being 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?

No output schema or annotations exist, yet the description names the return values (key, namespace) and the full handoff flow. It is complete enough to call correctly, though 'namespace' is left undefined.

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% and the schema already documents both 'name' and 'handoff' (including the default and redeem hint), so the description's parameter content is largely redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 specific verb and resource ('Create a tenant') plus the concrete outputs ('bearer key and namespace'), and its unauthenticated onboarding role is distinguishable from operational siblings like host.redeem or host.whoami. An agent immediately knows what this tool produces.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative path (handoff vs. raw key), states the recommended option, and routes the agent to the correct follow-up tool (host.redeem, redeem once). It stops short of stating outright when this tool is required (e.g. as the first step to obtain credentials), but the guidance is clear.

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