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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent and open-world, so the safety bar is partly met. The description adds genuinely non-obvious side-effect disclosure — no welcome email is sent, no user account or job is provisioned — plus the underlying POST /people call. Auth requirements and rate limits are absent, keeping it below 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with a WRITE marker and the required field, then scope limits, then the duplicate-check advice, then the endpoint. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description omits what comes back — notably the new person's identifier, which the caller needs in order to attach a job or account afterwards. Side-effect disclosure is strong, but the return contract and the optional-field semantics leave real gaps.

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 only 45% across 11 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate, yet it only restates that last_name is required — which the schema already enforces via the required array. None of the optional fields (email_is_personal, employee_number, title vs. preferred_name) get clarification.

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 person record in intelliHR') and immediately bounds the scope: person only, no job, no user account, no welcome email. That boundary is exactly what separates it from intellihr_update_person and the job-creation flows, so an agent can pick it without opening any 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?

Gives a concrete pre-call step ('Check with list_people first to avoid duplicates') and clarifies that jobs and user accounts are created separately. It never names the specific sibling to use for those follow-ups, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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