Create an instant trial account (no email)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable context: it refuses when an account exists unless replace is set, it saves credentials locally, it takes 15-30 seconds with progress reporting, and it creates a real production account with specific limits (100 MB, ~7 days, RF=3). It does not contradict annotations. The only minor gap is not detailing what 'destructive' means for replace (e.g., whether old credentials are overwritten or lost), but the description covers the key behavioral traits.

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 description is dense but well-structured: it front-loads the core purpose, then covers the auto-provisioning exception, the upgrade path, and the timing. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important guidance ('You usually do NOT need to call this') appears early. No fluff or repetition.

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 tool with no output schema and two optional parameters, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, when to call it, when not to, what happens on refusal, what the result is (real account, limits, local credentials), how long it takes, and how to extend the trial. The sibling list confirms the alternative paths. Nothing critical 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the default behavior of source ('mcp') implicitly and, more importantly, clarifies the replace parameter's purpose ('Only if the human explicitly wants a fresh, separate account') and the refusal behavior without it. This goes beyond the schema's bare description.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('free Obsideo account') with explicit qualifiers: no email, no human in the loop, proof-of-work, ~10 second wait. It clearly distinguishes this from signup_start (email-based claim) and from the auto-provisioning behavior of put/get/ls/usage. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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?

The description explicitly says 'You usually do NOT need to call this' and explains that the first put/get/ls/usage auto-creates a trial if no account is configured. It also names the alternative for keeping data beyond the trial (signup_start) and the condition for using replace. This is exemplary when-to-use guidance.

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