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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that nothing is created until email confirmation, that there is no payment and no wallet signature, the one-shopper-per-Mind cap, and the pending_verification return state before vs. after confirmation. This is rich behavioral context beyond anything structured.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and kept to a single dense paragraph; every clause carries lifecycle or return-state information. It is semicolon-heavy and somewhat run-on, but the length is justified by the multi-step provisioning semantics.

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 complex creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the return states (pending_verification, then shopper + appraisal_link_token), the confirmation gate, and the downstream tool, so an agent has everything needed to call and follow up correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the one-shopper-per-Mind cap on mind_id. The description reinforces 'pass your own mind_id' but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema states, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get a VIA Personal Shopper for the calling Mind's owner') and immediately elaborates the provisioning flow. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like buy_product or get_taste_card, and it even names the downstream sibling import_preference_appraisal.

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?

Explains the trigger condition (get a shopper for the owner), the required flow (owner must confirm email), and the follow-up path (appraise then call import_preference_appraisal with the token). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but for a provisioning tool with no true alternative the context is clear.

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