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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the project's DynamoDB table is provisioned asynchronously (~30 seconds) and the id is auto-generated (e.g. 'PRJ3'). It doesn't cover auth requirements or error behavior, but the async provisioning latency is a valuable disclosure 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the return value and the async caveat. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly steps in to describe the return (new project record + id format) and the async table provisioning delay. What is missing is auth/permission context and failure behavior for a creation tool, but the essentials for calling it correctly are present.

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%, so the schema already fully documents name, slug, description, multiTenant, and publicSignup, including dedupe and signup semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Create a new project under the platform customer') and goes further to describe the return value (new project record with auto-generated id) and a downstream dependency (the id feeds create_entity). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling create_* tools like create_entity and create_endpoint.

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?

Provides clear sequencing context — 'Use this id for create_entity calls' — telling the agent how this tool fits into a workflow. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to alternatives, and there is no exclusion or prerequisite stated.

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