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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description concretizes the non-idempotency into a real-world consequence (duplicate organizations) and adds the underlying endpoint POST /api/v1/Organizations. It stops short of stating what a successful response contains or what permissions/quotas apply, so not a 5.

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: the write classification is front-loaded, then the idempotency hazard, then the endpoint for reference. Nothing redundant beyond a brief endpoint citation.

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 23-parameter create operation with no output schema, the description covers the mutation hazard well but says nothing about the optional field surface or whether the created organization is returned with an id. Minimum viable: an agent knows how to call it safely but not what to expect back.

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?

The tool takes 23 parameters at only 43% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them, not even the single required 'name' field. With schema coverage this low, the description was the place to explain the consent flags, customFields structure, and id-based references, and it does not compensate.

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 ('create a new organization (company)') plus the system it acts on. Easily distinguished from pobuca_get_organization, pobuca_update_organization, and pobuca_list_organizations, and the 'WRITE:' prefix signals the operation class immediately.

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?

Explicitly warns that the call is not idempotent and prescribes the mitigating action: search with pobuca_list_organizations first. This names the alternative tool and the condition under which it should be used, leaving nothing to inference.

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