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

Even though annotations mark readOnlyHint=false, the description adds meaningful side-effect context: a fresh appId is allocated, the caller becomes owner, and the action counts against the owner's plan limit. It also documents expected errors (401/402/403/422) and the return value, going well beyond the annotations.

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 tightly packed sentences: the first covers behavior and side effects, the second covers auth and errors, the third points to the related alternative. Every sentence adds information and the most important fact is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth prerequisite, side effects, error conditions, and the return value. It is fully sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 input schema already has 100% description coverage for displayName with a clear human-readable explanation. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new Ethora app (tenant) owned by the currently logged-in user.' It further clarifies the outcome by stating it allocates a fresh 24-char hex appId and sets the caller as owner, which clearly distinguishes this from related tools like ethora-b2b-app-create.

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 states the intended context: user-auth mode with an active session via ethora-user-login first. It also names the alternative for server-side provisioning, ethora-b2b-app-create, making the boundary between the two clear.

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