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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is partly covered. The description adds the API endpoint and the fact that addresses can be created inline, but says nothing about the effect on failure, whether partial records are created, or what the response contains. The additive nature of 'create' alongside destructiveHint=true creates mild tension, but since create is still a write it is not a direct contradiction.

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 core verb and resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given a 12-parameter tool.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations explaining side effects, the description is far too thin. It does not indicate which fields matter, how addresses are structured, or what a caller should expect on success or failure.

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?

Only 33% schema description coverage across 12 parameters, so the schema leaves most fields (email, notes, phone numbers, lead_source, tags, first_name/last_name) undocumented. The description only mentions the addresses parameter's optionality and adds no meaning for the other eleven fields, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 a new customer') and notes the optional address sub-objects, so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like housecall_create_customer_address or housecall_update_customer, leaving the agent to infer which create path to use.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It never tells the agent to prefer housecall_create_customer_address for adding an address to an existing customer, nor what prerequisites (e.g., required fields or auth) apply before calling.

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