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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description adds valuable context beyond those: it discloses that enrichment runs asynchronously after creation, that required vs optional fields are listed, and it shows the exact success/failure return shape. This gives the agent important knowledge about side effects and response behavior that annotations alone do not convey.

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?

Four short, focused sections: what it does, when to use it, required/optional fields, and return behavior. The most important trigger phrase is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place without fluff.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are already documented structurally. The description covers the creation workflow, async enrichment side effect, required fields, and error behavior. Given the moderate complexity (7 params, 1 required, no nested objects), this is 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 coverage is 71%, and several parameters already have descriptions (job_title, last_name, first_name, workspace_id, idempotency_key). The description reinforces required/optional semantics for first_name, last_name, and job_title. It does not explain email or phone in prose, but the schema already describes them adequately, so the marginal gap is small.

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 new person (contact)') and gives concrete synonyms ('add, create, or register a new contact, employee, or person'). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like well_create_company and well_create_invoice_document, while the emphasis on 'person' and 'current workspace' differentiates it from well_update_person and well_delete_person.

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 says when to use this tool ('when the user asks to add, create, or register a new contact, employee, or person'). It also clearly signals alternatives by naming sibling tools that create other entity types or update/delete people, so an agent can route correctly.

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