create_organization_client

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it precisely defines the idempotency semantics (same key+same input → saved result; same key+different input → rejected). This goes beyond the generic idempotentHint annotation and clarifies the tool's behavior without contradicting any annotations.

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 only two sentences, with the purpose stated first and the crucial idempotency behavior second. Every sentence carries important information, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given that the tool has 10 parameters including nested objects, the description is somewhat thin. It focuses almost entirely on operation_key and does not mention the required organization_name, external_id, or address structure. The output schema and annotations provide some structural context, but for a parameter-rich creation tool, more guidance on typical usage and parameter relationships would be beneficial.

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 very low (0% per context, or at most 2 of 10 top-level parameters have descriptions). The description fully explains operation_key, which is critical, but it does nothing to clarify the remaining parameters such as external_id, lang_code, or tax_registration_number. With low coverage, the description must compensate more broadly, and it does not.

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 '法人の取引先を作成する' (creates a corporate client), which is a specific verb-resource pairing that clearly states the tool's function. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_quote and create_invoice, which create different entity types.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for creating corporate clients and includes specific usage guidance for operation_key: it must be unique per caller, reusable, and re-executing with the same key and input returns the saved result while reusing the key with different input is rejected. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5.

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