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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining that email/phone are convenience strings mapped to Pipedrive's structured arrays, which helps the agent understand how input relates to the API. It also mentions the REST endpoint. No contradiction with the annotation exists, and it adds useful behavioral context.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence, and each sentence adds essential information (required field, mapping behavior, REST endpoint). No wasted words or repetition of the title.

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 create operation with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, required parameter, parameter mapping, and API endpoint. It does not specify return values or explicit prerequisites, but the schema and annotations fill in most gaps, making this sufficiently complete for a straightforward creation tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by framing email/phone as 'convenience strings' mapped to structured arrays, which clarifies intent beyond the schema's property descriptions. It also emphasizes that name is required, reinforcing the schema without being redundant.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Create' and the resource 'a new person (contact)', which is clear and distinct from sibling tools like create_deal or create_activity. It also provides the exact REST endpoint (POST /api/v2/persons) and states the required field, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for creating persons/contacts, which is a distinct use case from the list/search/get siblings. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough that an agent would understand when to invoke it.

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