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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds that it creates the workspace and returns an API key, plus instructions for setting the Authorization header. This provides valuable context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the step context and ends with a concrete instruction. Every word 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, return format is covered. The description fills the gap by explaining the API key flow and session implications. It does not cover error cases, but for a simple signup step, the provided context is sufficient.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage) with clear descriptions ('6-digit code from the verification email', 'From register_organisation_request'). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses specific verbs ('confirms', 'creates') and identifies the resource ('workspace'), clearly distinguishing it as Step 2 of the agentic signup flow relative to register_organisation_request. No ambiguity exists about the tool's function.

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 explicitly labels this as 'Step 2 of agentic signup', implying it should be used after register_organisation_request. It also provides actionable guidance on using the returned API key for subsequent calls. It does not list exclusions, but the sequential context is sufficient for correct usage.

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