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

The annotations only supply a title and destructiveHint=true, so the description does most of the work: it discloses prerequisites and maps to the underlying POST /customers endpoint. However, 'additive' arguably softens the destructiveHint=true annotation and creates ambiguity about what 'destructive' means for a create call, and nothing is said about duplicate-email behavior, permission requirements, or response shape.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: purpose, prerequisites, and endpoint. Nothing needs to be trimmed and the most important information comes first.

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 an eight-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers required inputs and the API route but omits what is returned (e.g. the new customer id), error/duplicate handling, and any permission context. Adequate but with clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 schema already documents all eight parameters including the two required ones and the payment_provider enum. The description only restates the two required fields, adding no syntax, default, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides — the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Creates a new customer in Orb'), which cleanly separates it from the orb_get_*/orb_list_* siblings that read customer data. It does not explicitly name orb_update_customer as the alternative for modifying existing records, but the create-vs-read/modify distinction is obvious from the verb.

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 preconditions ('Requires name and a valid email') and the 'additive' qualifier implies this is for net-new records, but it never says when to reach for orb_update_customer instead, nor what happens if the email already exists. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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