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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it fully delivers: it states the tool affects nothing, that it historically caused a problematic split identity, and that every call now returns the VIA onboarding URL. This is exemplary transparency about the tool's retired, side-effect-free behavior.

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 multi-sentence but every sentence earns its place: retirement status, where accounts are now created, why the old behavior was harmful, and what the tool currently returns. It is dense with necessary context and contains 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?

Despite 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the tool's actual current behavior, return value type, and the correct owner action. No additional behavioral or usage information is missing for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 schema has 100% parameter coverage and rich descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds important context that all parameters are effectively irrelevant because the tool no longer creates anything and always returns the same URL, preventing an agent from over-weighting parameter choices.

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 immediately states the tool is retired and no longer creates anything, then clearly defines its current function: every call returns the VIA onboarding URL to send the owner to. It is specific about the resource (VIA onboarding URL) and distinguishes this from the historical behavior implied by the tool name.

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 clearly explains that account creation now happens on VIA, not through this tool, and instructs the agent to 'Send the owner there.' This is strong usage guidance, though it does not explicitly name a sibling MCP tool as an alternative; the alternative is an external platform URL.

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