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

Beyond annotations, it discloses important side effects: SuiteDash emails the primary contact a portal invitation when send_welcome_email is true, and create_primary_contact_if_not_exists conditionally creates a contact only when no existing contact has that email. Annotations already cover safety traits (write, destructive, open-world, non-idempotent), so this adds useful operational context without contradiction.

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?

The description is front-loaded with 'WRITE', then covers core creation, conditional contact behavior, and the email side effect in a compact sequence. Every sentence adds actionable information with no filler.

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 create tool with a nested optional contact object and no output schema, the description covers the most consequential behavior: required fields, conditional contact creation, and an external email side effect. It leaves some gaps, such as role semantics and prevent_individual_mode, but is otherwise complete enough to call safely.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains the conditional behavior of create_primary_contact_if_not_exists and send_welcome_email, and confirms name/role are required, but it does not explain the role enum, prevent_individual_mode, or email format details beyond what the schema already shows.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: create a CRM company. It also names required fields (name and role) and the optional primary contact, making it clearly distinct from sibling tools such as get_company, list_companies, update_company, and create_contact.

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?

It clearly implies this is the tool for creating a company and gives explicit guidance for the send_welcome_email flag: leave it false unless the user asked. It does not explicitly name when not to use this tool versus siblings, but the creation-specific framing is clear.

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