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

Annotations already carry openWorldHint and idempotentHint; the description adds value on top by disclosing return format (salesperson_id, install script, claim_url), the 'reads the site itself' behavior, and a concrete idempotency statement ('Safe to call twice'). No contradiction with 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?

A single well-ordered paragraph: purpose first, then usage trigger, then the required input, then the critical return-value instruction (keep salesperson_id), then the safety note. Every sentence earns its place with no filler; slightly dense but efficiently 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-format burden (salesperson_id, install script, claim_url) and flags the cross-tool dependency. It covers openWorld behavior and idempotency, and with 80% schema coverage the remaining parameter details are already structured. Little an agent needs to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds marginal meaning by clarifying website_url is the key input the salesperson consumes, but does not elaborate on campaign, integration_source, or external_project_id beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Give any public website an AI salesperson') plus the concrete outcomes (answers questions, captures leads). The create/check/configure/get/verify split across siblings makes it immediately distinguishable without needing 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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('when someone wants to add a salesperson, live chat, a sales assistant or a chatbot alternative to a site') and reinforces the required input (website address). It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use explicitly, but the sibling purposes are distinct enough that this reads as clear context.

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