sign_up_free_account

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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds substantial context beyond that: the free tier quota, that a confirmation email is sent, and the strong precondition that user_confirmed must reflect an explicit request. This goes well past the structured fields.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the critical guardrail, so the ordering is sound and every sentence carries weight. The trailing parenthetical '(User registration and free tier provision.)' is mildly redundant with the opening clause, costing a point.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effect (email), quota, and the confirmation precondition well. It stops short of describing duplicate-email behavior or error handling, which an agent might want, though idempotentHint=false in annotations signals repeat calls are not safe.

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 100%, so every parameter including the required user_confirmed flag is already documented in the schema. The description restates the optional profile fields (name, job_title, company) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a free Fodda Base account'), names the quota (100 API calls/month across ALL knowledge graphs), and notes the side effect (confirmation email). An agent can distinguish this registration tool from siblings like get_my_account 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?

The GUARDRAIL sentence gives explicit when-to-call and when-not-to-call guidance: only after the user explicitly provides an email and asks to create an account, never proactively or with an inferred email. This is exactly the kind of routing/exclusion instruction the dimension rewards.

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