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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true but say nothing else; the description does not add the behavioral detail the annotations omit, such as duplicate-email handling, minimum required fields, permission scope, or what is returned. It effectively restates the title and adds only a raw HTTP endpoint. No contradiction with annotations, since an insert is a write.

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 sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing API route adds traceability rather than bloat, though it does not help the agent invoke the tool more accurately.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description omits the essentials: which fields matter beyond the required name, whether duplicate customers are rejected, and what the caller gets back (e.g., the new customer ID). The endpoint string does not compensate for these 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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters (name, email, tag_list, legal_type, discount_percentage, email_marketing_consented) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new customer') and adds the backing endpoint, so an agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It does not differentiate from siblings such as booqable_update_customer or booqable_create_order, though the tool name largely carries that distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus booqable_update_customer or booqable_get_customer, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether the customer must not already exist, whether email is required for certain flows). The description is limited to a bare statement of action.

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