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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotent=false; the description usefully adds that the created record begins in an UNCRITICAL state. It does not explain why creation is flagged destructive, whether duplicates are rejected, or what identity/identifier comes back, so the destructive flag is left uncontextualized. 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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the dense parameter expansion relegated to second position, which is the right ordering. The '[publish]' bracket tag is ambiguous overhead, but otherwise nothing is wasted.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the definition covers the billing payload but omits whether the response returns the new customer id, duplicate-name behavior, and the required customer_title. Adequate to call it, not complete enough to call it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does well on the hardest parameter, expanding customer_billing's free-form object into the twelve invoice keys it accepts — information available nowhere in the schema. However, customer_title (the only required field), customer_note, customer_email and customer_phone are left to the bare schema titles.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('Create a new customer') with a distinguishing behavioral note that the record starts as UNCRITICAL. It is clearly separable from edit_customer, delete_customer and lead_submit_to_customer by name, though the description does not explicitly contrast with them. The '[publish]' prefix is cryptic and unexplained.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as edit_customer (for existing customers) or lead_submit_to_customer (converting a lead). The UNCRITICAL status hint implies a follow-up review step but never says what the agent should do next. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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