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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write, and the description usefully adds the required permission scope ("individuals.write"), which the annotations do not convey. It stops short of covering duplicate handling, failure modes, or what the response contains.

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 terse, front-loaded clauses: the operation, then the permission requirement. Nothing is padded, though the brevity comes at the cost of the parameter and return-value coverage noted elsewhere.

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 mutation with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description should at least say what a successful call returns or how required fields drive the payload. As written it is not sufficient for an agent to call the tool confidently without reading the schema closely.

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?

With 11 parameters and only 27% schema description coverage, the description carries a heavy burden and does almost nothing: the mention of "prospect, client or supplier" merely restates the type enum the schema already documents. It never identifies the two required fields (last_name, type) or clarifies the other nine optional parameters.

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 an individual") and defines the entity as "a private person as prospect, client or supplier," which implicitly separates it from sellsy_create_company. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sellsy_create_contact, which remains a plausible confusion point.

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 parenthetical definition implies the usage context (private person rather than a company), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative among the many create_* siblings. The only explicit constraint is the "individuals.write" permission requirement.

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