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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds 'All fields are optional' and the REST endpoint, but says nothing about duplicate handling, whether an existing person is merged/linked, or auth requirements — meaningful gaps for a create-with-linking tool.

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 action. The REST endpoint line is arguably inert for an agent but cheap, and nothing is padded or redundant.

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 14-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description is thin: it never says whether the new person's id is returned, nor how the company/groups linking behaves on creation. It is minimally viable but leaves an agent guessing about outcomes.

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% across all 14 parameters, including the {id}-vs-{name} company union, so the schema carries the semantics. The description's only substantive contribution is confirming that none are required, which is already implied by the empty required list. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Create a new person (contact)') with no ambiguity. Sibling differentiation is only implicit — it relies on the reader inferring create-vs-update/get from the name — but the purpose itself 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?

'All fields are optional' gives one useful precondition, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus folk_create_company or folk_update_person, nor any exclusions (e.g. duplicates). No context for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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