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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true plus a title, so the description carries real weight and delivers: the unlock_shareflo precondition, the required follow-up prompt, and the downstream representative path. It does not disclose duplicate-handling, idempotency, or what identifier/response comes back after creation, which matters for chaining into add_representative.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the operation description is front-loaded before the prerequisite and the follow-up instruction. Every clause carries actionable information for the caller.

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?

With no output schema, the description would ideally say what a successful call returns (e.g. the new stakeholder identifier needed by add_representative), but it does cover the precondition and the immediate next step. For a 10-parameter creation tool this is close to complete, with the response contract as the only notable gap.

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 ten parameters including the enum values, employee-only fields, and the email auto-representative behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema states, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates a new stakeholder') and goes further by defining the domain term in parentheses ('holder of an instrument'). It is clearly distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like get_stakeholders, though it never names a sibling directly to route between competing creation tools such as create_holding or add_representative.

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 a hard prerequisite ('Requires unlock_shareflo to have been called first') and a post-call workflow step (ask about registering a representative user). It lacks explicit when-not guidance, e.g. when to use add_representative directly instead of relying on the email auto-creation path, so it stops short of the top band.

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