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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, so the description carries additional burden and delivers: it flags the WRITE operation, notes 'No password is set by this tool' (a real behavioral caveat), and explains role-dependent requirements. It adds genuine context beyond annotations, though it omits things like auth/permission scope and idempotency.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, opening with the 'WRITE:' risk marker and packing role, dependency, and password caveats into a few tight sentences with zero filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so return values need not be described; the description covers the creation intent, role dependency, and role-conditional requirements. It leaves out permission/auth expectations for a destructive write, a minor gap for an 8-param 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?

With 75% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning the schema lacks: role_id provenance from kayako_list_roles and the conditional requirement that email and team_ids apply to collaborator/agent/admin roles. It stops short of documenting time_zone or other params, so not a 5.

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 user') and adds the typical intent ('a CUSTOMER to use as requester_id on a new case'), which lets an agent distinguish it from kayako_get_user, kayako_list_users, and kayako_create_case without opening a 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 clear usage context (create a customer as a requester_id) and a dependency ('role_id comes from kayako_list_roles'), plus conditional requirements for collaborator/agent/admin roles. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name a direct alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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