create_new_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'Returns created client_id and (by default) logs this MCP session into it,' which adds valuable behavioral context about side effects. However, it doesn't cover permissions needed, error conditions, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured: purpose first, then requirements, returns, and next steps. Each sentence adds value with no fluff. It could be slightly more concise by combining some points, but overall it's well-organized and front-loaded.

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 there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description does a decent job. It covers the core purpose, key parameters, behavioral effects, and workflow context. However, it misses details on optional parameters and full behavioral transparency, preventing a score of 5.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions two required parameters ('business_name' and 'email'), which helps, but doesn't explain the optional 'source' or 'auto_login' parameters. Since it partially addresses the 4 parameters but leaves half undocumented, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a brand-new Signal Found client account for onboarding.' It specifies the verb ('Create'), resource ('client account'), and context ('for onboarding'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'login_with_client_id' or 'run_full_agentic_onboarding', which prevents a score of 5.

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 usage context: it's for 'onboarding' and specifies a 'Next step after success: call create_new_product.' This gives practical guidance on when to use it in a workflow. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'login_with_client_id' for existing accounts, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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