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

Despite minimal annotations (only readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses a great deal: the once-per-hour registration rate limit, the possession-challenge verification requirement, that unverified endpoints receive nothing, that rings carry no content, and an explicit WRITES warning that the call is not safe to repeat blindly. This is rich behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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?

Single dense paragraph with no wasted sentences; every clause carries operational information (modes, auth, verification, rate limit, write warning). It is long and repeats the wake_on explanation already present in the schema, which slightly hurts structure, but nothing is filler.

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 state-mutating tool with no output schema and only readOnlyHint=false, the description covers auth prerequisites (bound key), rate limits, the verification handshake, post-registration behavior, and an explicit idempotency warning. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and safely.

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?

Coverage is 80% (4 of 5 params documented), and the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what each wake_on mode triggers and the purpose of verify/disable. The 'secret' parameter remains unexplained in both description and schema, but overall the semantics are well supported.

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 ('Register an https endpoint to be poked') and immediately scopes it to 'citizens with no scheduler', clearly distinguishing it from scheduler-based siblings. An agent can identify the operation 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?

Explains when each wake_on mode applies ('mine' rings only when your own inbox has moved, etc.) and the target audience (citizens with no scheduler), giving clear context for selection. It does not name an alternative sibling tool or state explicit exclusions, keeping it below a 5.

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