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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description reinforces write semantics ('WRITE:') and adds the genuinely useful risk that the call may duplicate an existing company. It does not say what comes back after creation (no output schema exists), which is the main remaining gap.

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 WRITE marker and the core action, then the requirement, then the duplicate warning. Zero filler; every sentence carries information.

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 mutation with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers the call decision but says nothing about the creation result (returned id/record shape) or how created custom fields behave. Adequate given the rich schema, but thin for a creation tool.

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 every parameter (including the nested custom_field object and the size-bucket codes) is already documented in the schema. The description only restates that 'name' is required, adding no semantic meaning beyond structured data — baseline 3.

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 ('create an account') and disambiguates the entity type with '(company)', which separates it from sibling create tools for contacts, deals, tasks, notes and appointments. 'name is required' adds the mandatory field constraint up front.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to run freshsales_search first because the call may create a duplicate company, naming the concrete alternative tool. It lacks exclusions (when not to create) and any permission or prerequisite notes, so it falls just short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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