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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that a primary contact is created alongside the account and that membership enrollment can happen inline, but it says nothing about duplicate handling, required permissions, or error behavior for a non-idempotent write.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core create action front-loaded and the routing hint second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the 13 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description covers the account-plus-contact creation and the membership branch adequately, though it omits any note on duplicate creation for a non-idempotent tool.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds only a light mapping (primary contact, optional membership enrollment) without format or default details beyond what the schema already carries; 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 and resource ('Create a CRM account/customer') plus the side effect of attaching a primary contact. It also names the sibling tool (enrol_membership) and the condition that routes to it, so an agent can distinguish it from alternatives 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?

Explicitly gives the when-to-use-alternative rule: enroll as a member here, or use enrol_membership later if the account already exists. It does not clarify how it relates to other creation siblings like create_contact or update_account, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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