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

Annotations provide only false hints, so the description carries most of the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a write/create operation but does not disclose duplicate behavior, default field values, lifecycle side effects, or whether re-registering a bag is problematic. This is thin coverage for a 40-parameter create 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?

One clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place by stating the action and entity, though the extreme brevity means it delivers very little information relative to the tool's complexity.

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 40-parameter create operation with only 38% schema coverage and sparse annotations, a single generic sentence is completely inadequate for correct invocation. The description does not mention required parameters, creation defaults, duplicate handling, or the meaning of registration, and the output schema does not resolve the input-side gaps.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 38%, the description needed to orient the agent around required parameters or key bean fields. It names none of the parameters and adds no semantic meaning beyond the phrase 'bag of coffee beans', so it fails to compensate for the schema's gaps.

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 action ('register') and a distinct resource ('bag of coffee beans'), with 'new' clarifying that this is a create operation. This is enough to tell it apart from siblings such as register_grinder, register_scale, and update_bean.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_bean or other register_* tools, and gives no exclusions or alternatives. The only usage signal is the implied 'create a new bag' meaning of the verb, which the agent must infer.

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