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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'create', such as authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. It doesn't contradict annotations, but with annotations covering key traits, the description's minimal addition results in a baseline score.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence 'Create a new user', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary details, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the complexity of a user creation tool with 5 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that don't fully explain behavior (e.g., no auth or error handling), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, return values, or operational context, making it inadequate for effective tool use.

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 0%, meaning parameters (name, email, password, address, phone) are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters, such as formats, constraints, or examples, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Create a new user' clearly states the verb ('create') and resource ('user'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of user or system context, and with no sibling tools, it doesn't need differentiation but remains somewhat vague beyond the basic action.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool, such as prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions. With no sibling tools mentioned, it doesn't address context or comparisons, leaving the agent without usage instructions beyond the obvious action implied by the name.

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