apiosk_create_account

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

Annotations already declare this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds a meaningful side effect beyond annotations: it saves the returned dashboard session token locally when available, which matters for state and security. No contradiction with annotations; more detail on duplicate-account behavior would push it higher.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by the operational constraint and the side effect. Every clause earns its place, and nothing is redundantly restated from the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers purpose, environment constraint, and the local token side effect. The minor gap is that it doesn't state how the saved session token feeds into subsequent authenticated calls, though an agent can reasonably infer this.

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 only 33%, so the burden falls on the description, but email and password are conventional self-explanatory account-creation fields. The description does reinforce the save_session parameter by stating the token is saved locally 'when available,' and 'credits-based payments' adds account-type context. Still, the two required parameters receive no semantic elaboration beyond their names.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Create') with a specific resource ('Apiosk dashboard account') and adds a purpose qualifier ('for credits-based payments'). The action is inherently distinct from the sibling apiosk_sign_in, so an agent can tell this is the registration path without opening the schema.

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?

Gives one explicit invocation constraint ('Local stdio only'), which is genuinely useful placement/usage guidance. However, it never names alternatives such as apiosk_sign_in for existing users, and gives no when-not-to-use conditions. Usage context is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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