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

Annotation Contradiction: the description calls the operation 'additive', while the annotations mark destructiveHint true. This directly contradicts the annotation and sends conflicting signals about whether the tool may destroy data. No return format, error behavior, or side-effect context is provided.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first clause. The repeated required-fields statement is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it is brief and does not harm clarity.

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 8-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description offers only the basic purpose and required fields. It lacks return-value expectations, error behavior, and resolution for the conflicting destructiveHint annotation, leaving an agent under-informed about how to handle the call's result safely.

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 8 parameters. The description only repeats that name and email are required, adding no meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('new customer in Orb'), and adds the clarifying term 'additive' to indicate the operation's non-destructive nature. This is enough to distinguish it from the get/list siblings and from orb_update_customer.

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 provides prerequisites (name and valid email) but does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that orb_update_customer should be used for existing customers or explain any uniqueness/idempotency concerns around external_customer_id.

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