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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the project is created in draft state, a first project may receive a free starting balance, and project_id is returned. Missing only failure modes or what happens on name collision.

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 compact sentences, each earning its place: definition, precondition, resulting state, forward routing and return value. The most important constraint (the ALL-projects connection requirement) is front-loaded in the second sentence.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming the return value (project_id) and the draft starting state. For a create tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% — all four parameters carry their own descriptions with examples, including the timezone omission default. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (create) and resource (project), then immediately defines what a project is — 'one bot for one business' — which disambiguates it from dosai_list_projects and dosai_get_project. An agent can tell this is the creation entry point without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Works only when the assistant is connected to ALL the owner's projects') plus the negative case ('a one-project connection cannot create more'), and routes the agent forward to dosai_compose_bot_description and then a channel. When-to-use, when-not, and workflow are all stated rather than inferred.

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