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

Annotations confirm a non-idempotent write, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the API key is displayed only once and must be stored, and the free plan carries a monthly entry limit with all tools included. It doesn't address what happens on duplicate organization names, but the destructive/side-effect profile is otherwise well 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?

Three tight sentences that front-load the core action and outcome, then plan terms, then the alternative tool. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by telling the agent exactly what it receives (an API key, displayed once) and the plan constraints. Nothing material for correct invocation or post-call handling is missing.

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 100% and the single parameter's meaning ("Your company or project name") is already documented in the schema. The description adds no further naming constraints or format guidance, so the 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+resource (create a Privi Ledger organization) plus the outcome (API key), and names the free plan explicitly. It clearly differentiates from ledger_upgrade_pro, which it identifies as the upgrade path rather than a competing signup route.

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?

"No key needed to sign up" tells the agent this is the unauthenticated entry point, and "Upgrade any time with ledger_upgrade_pro" routes the agent to the alternative for plan changes. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to call it (e.g. if an org already exists), leaving one inference to the agent.

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