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

Annotations already declare write/non-idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: no duplicate detection is performed, and the call returns the new individualID. It does not discuss permissions, error modes, or what happens on partial/invalid payloads.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the 'WRITE' marker and endpoint, and each sentence carries distinct information (purpose, required fields, duplicate caveat, return value). No filler.

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?

Return shape is covered in lieu of an output schema and the duplicate caveat is included, but for a 22-parameter mutation with nested custom_fields the description leaves most field-level semantics and any auth/permission context unaddressed.

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?

With 22 parameters and only 36% schema description coverage, the description must compensate and largely does not — it only notes that first_name/last_name are required and all else optional. Undocumented fields (zip, city, email, gender, lead_source, servicing_agent_id, phones) get no format or semantic hints from either source.

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 ('create a new individual') plus scope ('client or contact') and the backing endpoint (POST individuals/create). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like create_group, create_policy, and update_individual.

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 does not check for duplicates: search first' explicitly routes the agent to the search tool before creation, which is a real usage rule rather than a restatement. It stops short of naming agencybloc_search_individuals or describing when an update should be preferred over a create.

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