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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint=true, so the description adds real value by disclosing return values ('new person id and family id') and a key behavioral exclusion ('Does not create a login'). It stops short of stating permission requirements or that a failed create may leave no record, hence not 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 core action, then return values, then the login caveat. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 no output schema, the description usefully states the return payload and a notable side-effect exclusion, which is what an agent needs for this 13-parameter create tool. It could be slightly stronger by naming prerequisites or required permissions, but the essential information is present.

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% and the schema already documents all 13 parameters, including nested fields semantics and access_permissions refusal. The description adds a use-case example but no parameter syntax or meaning 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a new person to the church database') with a concrete example and an explicit scope note ('Does not create a login'). An agent can distinguish it from elvanto_update_person without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the create semantics and the guest example, and the 'does not create a login' clause rules out one nearby expectation, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus sibling tooling such as update_person or add_person_to_group.

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