Create manual account

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation nature is known. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g. whether creation is reversible, idempotency, or side effects). It does not contradict 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 a single brief sentence, which is concise and easy to parse. However, it is under-specified: it does not earn its place by conveying necessary guidance because it omits parameter semantics and usage direction.

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 tool has 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and requires 3 fields, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot correctly call this tool without understanding parameter purpose or valid values, even though an output schema exists.

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 like name, balance, account_type, account_subtype, and include_in_net_worth are not documented in the schema text. The description does not compensate: it provides no explanation of what these parameters mean or how to choose valid values, even though required fields exist.

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 clearly states the action ('create') and the resource ('manual Monarch account'), distinguishing it from other account-related tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, though no competing 'create' tool exists among the 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or context such as what constitutes a 'manual' account. The description merely states the action without any usage context.

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