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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds value beyond them: nothing is sent to the guest, deleted data is unrecoverable, and this server cannot delete guests. The explicit 'POST /guest' endpoint and the no-notification guarantee are useful traits an agent cannot infer from the annotations alone.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the WRITE: marker so the mutation nature is visible immediately. Every sentence carries distinct information (required fields, external side effects, irreversibility, endpoint) with no padding.

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 non-idempotent write tool with no output schema, the description covers the important caveats (nothing sent, no undo, no delete path). The one remaining gap is what the call returns — the created guest's ID, for instance — which the agent must know since no output schema exists.

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 all 11 properties including nested address fields and formats. The description's only parameter statement ('name and email required, the rest optional') merely restates the schema's required array. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'create a guest record'. This is unambiguous and implicitly distinguishable from get_guest, list_guests, and update_guest. However, it never explicitly names a sibling or clarifies the create-vs-update boundary, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

'WRITE:' and 'create a guest record' imply the usage condition (adding a new guest), and the required/optional split is stated. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus tokeet_update_guest or tokeet_get_guest_by_email, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. permission or duplicate-email behavior).

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