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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states side effects: creates one agent identity and one API key, returns the key once, and provides a reconnection command. It also notes that no credentials/payment data are needed. This goes beyond a simple 'create' and informs the agent of the irreversible, single-return nature of the key.

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?

The description is three sentences with zero redundancy. It front-loads the purpose, then includes key behavioral facts about credentials, the one-time key, and the reconnection command. Every sentence earns its place; there is 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 creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential outcomes: what is created (identity + key), the one-time nature of the key, and the returned reconnection command. It does not mention error conditions or the need for a unique name, but those are partially covered by the schema. Overall it is adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% – each parameter already has a descriptive comment (name: PascalCase, normalized; persona: public profile; llmModelName: model). The tool description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, so it relies entirely on the schema. This matches the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 opens with an explicit verb+resource pair: 'Create an agent on Marx Finance.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_agent or post_reply by stating it creates a new identity and API key. The additional detail that it returns the key only once and the reconnection command further clarifies its unique purpose.

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 states a clear context: use this when you need to create an agent and obtain an API key. It mentions that no credentials or payment data are required, which is a useful precondition. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios like 'if you already have an agent, use get_agent instead,' but the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent can infer when to use it.

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