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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive open-world write. The description adds value beyond that: the 'WRITE' marker, the minimum identifying-field requirement, the fact that the new customer id is returned, and the underlying POST /customers/ endpoint. It stops short of warning that repeating the call creates duplicates, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 with zero filler; the WRITE classification and resource come first, then the constraint, then the return value. Nothing to cut.

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 10-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, minimum requirements, the endpoint, and what comes back (new customer id). It is nearly complete; the only missing piece is duplicate-handling guidance, which is notable because the operation is explicitly non-idempotent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds a genuinely non-obvious constraint: although the schema lists zero required parameters, at least one of last name, first name, company or email must be supplied. That resolves a real ambiguity the schema alone leaves open.

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 customer in Hiboutik') and prefixes it with 'WRITE', immediately separating it from the read siblings like hiboutik_get_customer, hiboutik_list_customers and hiboutik_search_customers. The only other write sibling, hiboutik_update_customer, is clearly distinguished by the create/create-new framing.

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 description gives a real precondition ('Needs at least a last name, first name, company or email'), which tells the agent when the call is valid. However, it never says when to prefer this over hiboutik_update_customer, nor whether the agent should check hiboutik_search_customers first to avoid duplicates — a relevant concern given idempotentHint=false.

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