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

Annotations already convey mutating, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, so the description's burden is lower. It adds useful context: Canada/US profiles require matching currency, entity type, and timezone, and omitting jurisdiction triggers generic accounting defaults. However, it does not disclose the success response shape or behavior on failed constraint validation, so transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences front-load the purpose, then list constraints and scope. The advice to 'Search help for policy choices' is slightly vague but not redundant. The description is compact and every sentence earns its place, though it could be tightened.

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?

Covers creation scope, defaults, and jurisdiction-dependent constraints, and points to help for policy options. However, with no output schema, it omits what a successful call returns (e.g., a portfolio reference), and the open-world side effects are not elaborated. For an 11-parameter creation tool, this leaves meaningful 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 coverage is 91%, which sets a baseline of 3. The description adds cross-parameter meaning beyond the schema by stating that Canada/US profiles require consistent currency, entity type, and timezone, and that omitting jurisdiction selects generic defaults. This helps agents pick coherent parameter combinations, which is valuable.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: creates an accounting portfolio in an existing workspace. Also draws a clear boundary by noting workspace creation remains in the Tokenbooks UI, distinguishing it from workspace-scoped tools. The action is unambiguous and easily separated from list/get sibling tools.

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?

Clarifies the valid scenario: use when a portfolio is needed inside an already-existing workspace, and explicitly excludes workspace creation as a UI task. It also describes behavior when jurisdiction is omitted, helping agents decide whether to supply jurisdiction-related parameters. No specific sibling tool is named, so it doesn't reach the explicit-alternative tier.

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