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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the 20-item cap, the required scopes, the replay semantics of the idempotency key, the asynchronous job model, and the critical one-time secret reveal on the first terminal GET. It leaves out error/partial-failure behavior and whether a job can be cancelled, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three compact sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope and permissions, required input, and the post-call polling/secret behavior. The most consequential facts (bulk scope, idempotency requirement, one-time secret) are front-loaded with no filler.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers permissions, idempotency, async polling, and secret visibility — enough for an agent to call it correctly. It stops short of describing failure modes or what a partially successful job looks like, which is the remaining gap for a bulk mutation.

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 100% and the schema already documents both items (max 20) and idempotencyKey (length range, replay semantics). The description reinforces the requirement and the cap but adds no format or structural detail about individual provisioning items beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Bulk-provision up to 20 customer vaults per job") plus the exact permission set (treasury + keys:manage + wallets:write). It also names the sibling get_provisioning_job as the follow-up tool, so the agent can distinguish this creator from the status reader without opening either 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?

It gives a clear operating procedure: supply idempotencyKey in args, then poll get_provisioning_job until a terminal state. It does not state explicit exclusions or when to prefer a single-vault provisioning path over this bulk job, but the workflow context is unambiguous.

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