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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely behavioral fact – the contact code must be unique, so duplicates will fail – but says nothing about permissions, side effects, or what a successful call returns.

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, front-loaded with the WRITE marker and the resource, then the key constraint. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

With 11 parameters, 4 of them required, entity-type conditional requirements, and no output schema, the description is too thin to call this correctly – it doesn't explain required-field rules, the MyInvois-dependent entity_type semantics, or what is returned on success.

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 73%, so the schema already documents most parameters, and the one parameter the description expands on (contact_code's allowed characters and 15-char limit) merely restates the schema's pattern and maxLength. Nothing is said about the four required fields (legal_name, contact_code, entity_type, types) or the entity-type/reg_no/tax_id_no interdependencies.

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 (create) and resource (contact), scopes it to customer/supplier/employee, and names the endpoint POST /contacts. It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like bukku_get_contact and bukku_list_contacts.

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 'WRITE:' prefix signals that this is a mutating call, but the description gives no guidance on when to create vs. update or when not to use it. No alternatives or prerequisites are named, leaving routing entirely to inference from the name.

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