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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds real context beyond them: the agent is created privately in the user's account, every call creates a new agent (reinforcing non-idempotency), and the result includes a preview/publish link plus a hosted page and embed snippet. It does not mention account limits, quotas, or permission requirements, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 when-to-use condition is front-loaded, and the follow-on sentences cover creation, return value, and exclusions in a logical order. The opening sentence is an unusually long enumeration with some redundant rephrasings ('chatbot or assistant', 'creating an AI assistant for...'), which costs it the top score.

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 7-parameter creation tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers everything an agent needs before calling: what gets created, privacy, the publish/preview flow, the optional contact form, the non-idempotent behavior, and what it should not be used for. Output schema exists, and the description still summarizes the returned link without over-explaining it.

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 baseline is 3 and every parameter (name, greeting, knowledge, instructions, collectContactInfo, suggestedQuestions) is already documented in-schema. The description only adds marginal meaning, mainly restating that the contact form collects names and emails, which the schema already says.

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+resource ('Creates a new private agent') and enumerates concrete input types (FAQ, menu, policy, price list, document) that map to the `knowledge` parameter. Siblings like add_agent_knowledge, update_agent_instructions, and get_agent are clearly differentiated by the explicit 'Each call creates a new agent' and the 'Not for...' clause.

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?

Explicit trigger conditions are given ('Use this when the user wants information from the conversation turned into an AI agent'), plus concrete scenarios (business, event, product, class, listing, website chat). Exclusions are equally explicit: not for full websites with custom layouts, email/SMS campaigns, or file hosting, which routes the agent away from this tool.

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