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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Register' without explaining what this entails: whether it is permanent, requires approvals, validates inputs, or returns any confirmation. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 a single, concise sentence with zero wasted words. However, it is slightly too brief for a tool with four parameters and no annotations, but the conciseness itself is good.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what happens after registration, whether the entity must exist elsewhere, or what the response will be. The one-line description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given that the schema already documents the fields and their types.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('new regulated entity'), and the name 'create_entity' aligns with this. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like assess_entity and entity_list, which concern existing entities rather than creating new ones.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context for appropriate usage, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not mention whether this tool is for initial onboarding or if entity_type is required for certain jurisdictions.

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