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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it creates PII, runs no verification check, and costs nothing. It stops short of disclosing auth requirements, return format, or what happens to the created record.

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 core action and endpoint, followed by a critical scope clarification. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

Given the full schema descriptions and the destructiveHint annotation, the description covers the essential behavioral context (no check, no cost, PII record). It could be richer by mentioning the return value or any authentication requirements, but it is largely complete for a simple creation tool with no output schema.

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 the parameter semantics are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the high coverage but earns only the baseline score.

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 (creates) and resource (applicant/person record) and includes the exact API endpoint. The added phrase 'runs NO verification check' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling check/report tools, so an agent can select it correctly without ambiguity.

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?

Clearly signals when to use it: to create a PII record without running verification and at no cost. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., update_applicant for existing records) or state prerequisites such as required fields, leaving some routing inference to the agent.

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