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 write/non-destructive profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond them: the practice-configurable client form that determines which optional fields exist, and the return of the created record with its id.

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, front-loaded with the operation type and required field, followed by the form caveat, return value and duplicate check. Nothing redundant.

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 16-param write tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: required field, the fact that remaining fields are practice-specific, the return shape, and the dedupe precondition. It omits failure behavior when unknown extra_fields are supplied, which would be the last 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 coverage is 50% across 16 params, and the description only addresses 'title' plus the general note that other fields depend on the practice's form — a useful optionality signal but not per-parameter meaning. The nested contacts object and the ~10 address/contact/type fields are documented (or not) in the schema, not the description.

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?

Opens with an explicit verb and resource ('WRITE: create a new client (company) in the practice'), which cleanly separates it from the read/update siblings (senta_get_client, senta_search_clients, senta_update_client). The single required field is named immediately, so the agent knows the minimum viable call.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition — 'Check senta_search_clients first so you do not create a duplicate' — which names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it. It does not say when to prefer senta_update_client for an existing record, leaving that one inference to the agent.

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