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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered; the description adds the meaningful nuance that it 'only adds a record; nothing is sent,' clarifying there are no downstream side effects. It stops short of saying what happens on validation failure (does it throw, or return errors in the dry_run response), which keeps it off a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the mutation warning and followed by the two most important pre-call habits. No filler, no restatement of the schema.

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 14-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers what is created, that nothing is sent downstream, and how to preview safely. The remaining gap is what a successful call returns (the new record id/code), which matters for chaining into update_contact or get_contact.

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 all 14 parameters including dry_run are already documented with types, patterns and lengths. The description's only parameter-related content is the dry_run guidance, which restates the schema's own wording, so baseline 3 applies.

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 an explicit verb+resource pair ('create a new address-book entry (customer or supplier)') and names the system, ABRA Flexi. It is trivially distinguishable from the sibling read tools (list_contacts, get_contact) and from abraflexi_update_contact.

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 gives two concrete preconditions: run dry_run first to preview, and check abraflexi_list_contacts first to avoid duplicates. That names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it, so nothing is left to inference.

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