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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety/mutation profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by stating the return shape ('Returns the new record') and the endpoint, which matters since there is no output schema; it does not mention permission requirements or validation failure behavior.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the WRITE marker and the core action. Every sentence carries distinct information (action, optional relation, return value, endpoint) 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?

For a simple 3-parameter create tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers action, optional linkage, return value and endpoint. Only minor gaps remain, such as error/validation behavior for a wrong industry slug.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself explains the industry slug format and the personIds _id semantics in detail. The description only gestures at the optional person linking, adding no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 ('add a company') plus the optional relationship behavior and the underlying endpoint (POST /companies), which clearly separates it from plutio_list_companies. It does not explicitly name a sibling it replaces, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'WRITE:' prefix signals this is the creation path rather than a read, and 'optionally linking existing people' hints at the intended use case. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to plutio_create_person or the list tools; the routing is only implied.

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