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

The description adds the behavioral trait that this is a create operation, which is not explicitly stated in the annotations (they only provide openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). However, it does not disclose side effects, whether existing data is overwritten, authentication needs, or any other operational behavior. Given the annotations are present, the bar is lower, but the description still lacks depth.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose and the key requirement. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the action and resource. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Despite having 54 parameters and an output schema, the description gives only a one-sentence overview. It does not mention prerequisites, side effects, or any operational context. While the output schema exists (so return values are covered), the tool's complexity demands a richer description to help an agent select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema has 54 parameters with zero property descriptions. The description groups them into 'personal, employment and financial data' and notes 'Only email is required', which adds some meaning. However, this is minimal compensation for the large, undocumented parameter set. It does not explain specific formats, constraints, or relationships between parameters beyond what the schema already encodes.

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 clearly states a specific action: 'Creates a MyWage user' with the supplied data. It names the resource (MyWage user) and scope (personal, employment, financial data), and clarifies the minimum requirement. While the title 'Transfer user' is somewhat ambiguous, the description resolves it by using the verb 'creates'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. 'Only email is required' is a parameter detail, not usage guidance. With no sibling tools listed, the description still fails to explicitly state the intended context or when not to use it.

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