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

Annotations provide only destructiveHint=true, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It says nothing about what happens on duplicate email, whether the call is idempotent, what authentication is required, or what the response contains — all important for a create endpoint. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation, with the REST endpoint as a compact implementation hint. Nothing is padded, though the endpoint line is informational rather than agent-directing.

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 three-parameter create tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the essentials are present. However, duplicate-handling and return-value behavior — the things an agent most needs beyond the schema for a create — are absent, leaving a gap.

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 name, email, and the arbitrary `data` attribute bag. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so 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?

"Create a new contact (customer)" is a specific verb+resource, and the clarifying parenthetical plus the REST endpoint (POST /contacts) make the operation unambiguous against siblings like reamaze_update_contact and reamaze_get_contact. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it's clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 word "new" implies this is for contacts that don't yet exist, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus reamaze_update_contact, reamaze_get_contact, or reamaze_list_contacts, and no stated prerequisites.

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