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

With empty annotations, the description carries full responsibility and discloses a critical behavioral trait: it 'will overwrite the system Netfluid wallet and PIN auto-created for each subscription client.' It also notes the internal-use parameter and return shape, though it omits reversibility and permission requirements.

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 front-loaded with a clear first sentence and every subsequent sentence adds value (overwrite warning, usage context, param docs, return type). The @param lines are redundant with the schema structurally but beneficial because the schema lacks descriptions.

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?

It covers the purpose, all parameters, a destructive side-effect warning, and the return shape ('a json object, in the values object'), which is sufficient for a 4-parameter mutation tool. It stops short of explaining error scenarios, permissions, or what happens to existing subscription payment behavior after linking.

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 @param notes explain every parameter, including the non-obvious 'encrypted_wallet_pin: For internal use, submit as a blank string,' which is not in the schema. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Links a customer_id with a netfluid wallet_fk and account_fk,' clearly stating what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling read tools like customer_get_linked_wallet_account by emphasizing the linking/overwrite behavior.

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 provides clear context ('This wallet will be used to pay for subscriptions') and a strong caution ('Always confirm before execution') due to the overwrite side effect. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or define when not to use it, stopping short of a 5.

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