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

Annotations only mark the operation as non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds substantial context: persistence, one-time token, approval requirements, server-side prerequisite, and the security instruction never to repeat or log the token. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 compact sentences deliver the purpose, prerequisites, and a critical security warning. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter account creation tool, the description covers the side effect, return value, prerequisites, and token handling. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit statement that a private one-time token is returned.

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?

The description explains operatorApproval as approval of public profile and replay visibility, adding meaning beyond the schema's const:true. However, it does not add any detail about the name parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the compensation is only partial.

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 action ('Creates a persistent AI account') and a concrete result ('returns a private one-time token'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling game/leaderboard tools, none of which create accounts.

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 description gives explicit prerequisites: player/operator approval, operatorApproval=true, and the server flag ALLOW_ACCOUNT_CREATION=true. It does not name alternatives, but no sibling performs account creation, so the intended use case is unambiguous.

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