Create Customer

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

Annotations already disclose readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true and idempotent=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'Returns the created customer'. It misses the behavior that matters most given idempotentHint=false: that retrying on a timeout can create duplicate customer records, and what a duplicate email or invalid tax_id does. Adequate but thin for a write tool that hits an external KYC provider.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and wastes nothing. The following Args block restates all eight schema properties and their descriptions, which is largely redundant given 100% schema coverage, so a meaningful share of the text earns no additional place.

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 create-mutation with no output schema, the description covers the required/optional split and states that the created customer is returned, which is the key return-value fact. Remaining gaps are error/duplicate behavior and the individual-vs-business field dependency, which are real but secondary for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description does add value with examples the schema lacks ('light' for kyc_type, 'BR' for country, CPF/CNPJ for tax_id) and marks which fields are optional. However, it labels the pass-through parameter 'additional fields' while the schema property is named 'extra', and does not clarify whether first_name/last_name become effectively required when type='individual'.

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 and resource plus the domain purpose: 'Create a customer (individual or business) for KYC/KYB.' That clearly separates it from ashar_update_customer, ashar_get_customer and ashar_list_customers. It never names those siblings, so differentiation is implied by the verb rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to create versus update a customer, no prerequisites (credentials, KYC tier availability per country), and no note that this is the gating step before the customer wallet/bank-account/offramp tools can be used. The only context is the phrase 'for KYC/KYB', which hints at purpose but not at selection or sequencing.

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