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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses return values (partner_id, api_key, status) and adds a security note ('store securely!') for the api_key. However, it omits other behavioral aspects like permissions, idempotency, or side effects, so it is only partially transparent.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose, when-to-use, returns, and an example. Every section serves a distinct purpose, with no fluff or repetition. The example is concise and illustrative.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides essential context: usage conditions, return fields, and an example. It does not cover edge cases like duplicate registrations or permission requirements, but the provided information is sufficient for basic usage and the schema fills the parameter-level gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The example in the description demonstrates typical usage of some parameters (company_name, email, industry, expected_devices) but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Register a new partner organization with Trillboards' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like register_device by focusing on partner organizations and mentions 'manage devices' as a use case, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit 'WHEN TO USE' conditions: first-time setup for new partner integration and creating a new partner account. It gives clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, which would push it to a 5.

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