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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true), the description discloses critical behaviors: later-step failures don't undo earlier steps, tokens are returned only once and must be captured, errors abort with a partial step log, and the previous auth mode is restored best-effort. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose/steps, failure semantics, return behavior, auth requirement, error behavior, and sibling differentiation. It is dense but not bloated, and the most decision-relevant information 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 complex multi-step tool with no output schema, the description covers the full call sequence, return shape, failure semantics, auth prerequisite, and relationship to alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage across all 10 parameters, so the description does not need to restate parameter meanings. It adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but the schema already carries that burden, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('One-call B2B orchestrator') and enumerates exactly what happens: create app, mint tokens, provision rooms, configure/enable bot. It also distinguishes itself from the closely related sibling ethora-b2b-app-bootstrap-ai, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 states the auth prerequisite explicitly ('B2B mode ... + configured b2bToken'), describes the orchestration use case, and names the alternative tool with a clear differentiator: bootstrap-ai does sources+bot but not tokens/rooms. This is strong routing guidance.

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