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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the 'WRITE:' prefix and 'POST /people' largely restate the safety profile. The only incremental behavioral content is the optional company/job-title linkage, and even that overlaps the job_title schema text ('used only together with company_id'). No note on side effects like source/industry records being silently created.

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; the write nature and resource are front-loaded, with the optional linking detail second. Slightly telegraphic ('WRITE:', trailing endpoint) but no wasted text.

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 tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it creates and the one cross-entity relationship, while the rich schema covers the rest. It omits what the call returns (created person id) and any note that some fields auto-create related records (source, industry), leaving minor gaps.

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 explains all 11 parameters including the company_id + job_title dependency and enum-like customer_status values. The description adds only a high-level summary of the linking relationship, which is the correct baseline-3 posture when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource (create a person/contact) plus the endpoint (POST /people), which cleanly separates it from create_company, create_deal, and create_lead in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name or route against siblings, but the resource noun makes the distinction unambiguous.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus teamgate_update_person (for existing records) or teamgate_create_company, and no prerequisites such as needing company_id/owner_id resolved first. The optional company-link behavior is mentioned but not framed as a usage condition or exclusion.

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