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

Annotations only say this is not read-only and not destructive; the description carries the full behavioral burden. It covers password auto-generation, one-time return, API key minting by default, session binding, auth prerequisites, and specific error codes. It could still add more about the exact response shape, but given the constraints it is quite complete.

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 two concise sentences plus an error list and sibling pointer. It is not bloated and front-loads the primary purpose before auth/errors. Minor redundancy with schema descriptions means it is not a perfect 5.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and only basic annotations, this description still covers high-level behavior, errors, authentication, and the API-key reconnection flow. It does not detail a response schema, but while there is no output schema it may be incomplete in exact return shape, so this is a minor gap.

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?

Parameter schema already covers 100% of the properties, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the `appJwt` auth dependency, tying API key creation to reconnection, and summarizing which error conditions map to email/password validation, going beyond the raw schema texts.

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 says clearly that this tool creates a new user, logs the session in, and can mint an API key. It explicitly names the related bulk alternative, `ethora-users-batch-create-v2`, so an agent can tell this tool apart from its sibling without opening the schema.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (new account + session + optional API key) and names the bulk alternative. It does not explicitly tell the agent when not to use it (e.g., for an already-existing user, `ethora-user-login`), but the purpose is clear enough.

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