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

Annotations declare only readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true, but the description goes further: it discloses the email verification flow, that a 6-digit code is emailed, and that the session continues via 'connect'. It also surfaces the key behavioral risk ('never guess or invent the email address'). This is meaningful disclosure beyond the structured hints.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the operational steps. Every sentence carries actionable content, though the workflow instructions make it longer than the minimum needed for pure identification.

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 multi-step account/sign-in entry point, it covers purpose, user interaction, the hand-off to 'connect', and the anti-fabrication rule. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation in the description.

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 documents email, name, and client, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds real value by constraining how values should be sourced ('ask the user', 'never guess or invent it' for email) and when name is needed, though it says nothing about the client parameter.

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 CortexPlus account, or begin signing in to an existing one') plus the downstream purpose (long-term memory / knowledge base). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'connect', which is positioned as the follow-up step rather than the same action.

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 prescribes when to call it, what to ask the user for (email, and name if unknown), and what to do next ('ask the user for that code and call connect with it and the same email'). It names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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