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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true; the description adds consistent context ('WRITE: it adds a record to the Quipu account') and a real dependency (tax id needed before invoicing). It does not disclose failure modes such as duplicate tax ids, validation errors, or what happens with optional fields left blank — meaningful gaps for an 11-param mutation.

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: what it does, that it is a write, and the key prerequisite. Nothing is redundant and the verb leads.

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 11-parameter create with no output schema, the description says nothing about which fields are required, how the enum for document_type is used, whether the returned id is needed for follow-up calls, or duplicate handling. It is far too thin for 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 coverage is only 18% — just tax_id and country_code are documented in the schema. The description mentions tax id semantically but leaves nine other parameters (document_type enum, bank_account_number, client_number, address fields) entirely unexplained, so it does not compensate for the low coverage.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Create a contact', with the useful scope qualifier '(client or supplier)'. This clearly separates it from quipu_list_contacts and quipu_update_contact, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 tax-id/invoicing note implies when the tool matters (set up a contact before billing them), but it never states when to use this versus quipu_update_contact for an existing contact, nor any exclusion or duplicate-handling guidance.

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