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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals critical runtime facts: a bearer token is returned, the token is the only credential, it must be sent as Authorization header on every following request, and the account has no password until set_password is called. It does not mention duplicate-email behavior or response shape, but the core safety information is covered.

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 compact but information-dense. Each sentence earns its place: creation purpose, token safety warning, authentication instruction, and the set_password fallback. The most important operational guidance is front-loaded around the token.

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 simple 3-parameter account creation tool, the description covers the key operational points: what is created, how the returned token is used, how to protect it, and how to get a fallback credential. Given the annotations are absent and there is no output schema, the description is remarkably complete.

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 0%, so the description needs to add meaning. It only names the three parameters without explaining their semantics beyond what the schema already encodes. The schema already provides types, requiredness, and string constraints. The description lacks additional guidance like email uniqueness or casing behavior, so it adds minimal parameter-level value.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new EQVPS customer account'. It also lists the exact input fields (first_name, last_name, email). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like login, set_password, and whoami.

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?

It explicitly explains when to use this tool and how it behaves: no password or human step is needed, and the returned token is the only credential for subsequent requests. It names an alternative fallback path (set_password) for enabling password login, giving the agent clear routing guidance.

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