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

Beyond the annotations (non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent), the description discloses two genuinely useful behaviours: a strong password is generated when omitted and is shown only once, and creation is bounded by the plan's users-per-customer limit. The one-time visibility of the credential is exactly the kind of detail an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the credential behaviour, then the plan constraint. Nothing is repeated from the schema and no sentence is 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 covers the critical return detail (the generated password, returned once) but says nothing about the rest of the response, such as the new user's identifier needed for later delete_customer_user calls. For a create tool that gap is small but real.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by tying the optional password parameter to the generation-and-return-once behaviour, which the schema only states as 'Leave empty to have a strong password generated.' It does not add meaning for dashboardId or customerRecordId beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a login for one of your customers') plus the outcome ('sign in to the published dashboard and see their own data'), which distinguishes it from add_customer (creates the customer record) and delete_customer_user. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Usage context is clear: this is for giving an existing customer dashboard access, and the reference to customerRecordId from list_customers implies the customer must already exist. However, no sibling is named explicitly and there is no statement of when not to use it (e.g., customer already has a login, or dashboard is unpublished).

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