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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true; the description adds the endpoint path but nothing about duplicate-email handling, required permissions, whether the call is idempotent, or what the response returns. For a mutation with side effects, that is a thin behavioral picture, though the annotations carry the safety signal.

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?

Two short front-loaded sentences with no filler; the action is stated first. The endpoint sentence is marginal utility but not wasteful.

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 6-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description omits what a successful call returns (e.g. the new customer's id), how validation errors surface, and any duplicate/precondition rules. The schema covers inputs, but the description leaves the mutation's outcomes unexplained.

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%, with every field documented including the required name, the legal_type enum, and the discount bounds. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the 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?

"Create a new customer" states a specific verb and resource, and naming the API endpoint (POST /api/4/customers) confirms the write semantics. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like booqable_update_customer or booqable_get_customer, but the intent is unmistakable.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as booqable_update_customer for existing customers or booqable_list_customers/booqable_get_customer for lookups. An agent must infer the choice purely from the verb in the name.

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