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

Even though annotations already indicate this is a write operation, the description adds materially useful behavioral context: counts against plan limit, allocates a fresh appId, sets ownership, returns redacted credentials, and requires a separate reveal call for the appToken. It also specifies auth and error behavior. No contradiction with the annotations is present.

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 dense but well organized: core behavior first, then auth, errors, and alternatives. Every sentence contributes agent-relevant information, with no filler or tautological repetition of the title.

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 the return shape, the redaction behavior, the follow-up tool for credentials, auth prerequisites, failure modes, and the related server-side alternative. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly without further lookup.

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 100%, and the schema already fully defines displayName and its meaning. The description adds only the indirect detail that an invalid displayName yields a 422 error, which is marginal. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Create a new Ethora app (tenant)'), states the concrete outcome (allocation of a fresh 24-char hex appId, caller set as owner), and describes the return value. It also distinguishes this user-facing creation tool from the related server-side ethora-b2b-app-create, making sibling differentiation clear.

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 required auth mode and prerequisite ('user-auth mode, active session (ethora-user-login first)'), gives error conditions (401, 402/403, 422), and names the alternative for server-side provisioning (ethora-b2b-app-create). This is explicit when-to-use guidance with a clear exclusion.

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