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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-idempotent profile is covered. The description adds value the annotations do not: the rights-scope requirement as an auth precondition, the return value ('a work id for delegation and quoted work'), and the semantic caveat that registration does not itself establish infringement.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then prerequisites, then inputs, then return/behavioral caveat. Every clause carries information, though the final clause is slightly dense.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, required/optional inputs, the return identifier, and a critical scope caveat, which is enough for correct invocation. Minor gap: it does not explicitly point to create_rights_holder as the source of the required rights_holder_id.

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% and the nested body object already documents rights_holder_id, description, original_url and external_id. The description repeats the same fields plus the minor hint that external_id is 'your' (caller-supplied) id, adding little beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Register a protected original work') and scopes it to 'an existing rights holder in this organization', which distinguishes it from the sibling create_rights_holder and from copy-detection tools.

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?

It gives a prerequisite ('Requires rights scope', 'under an existing rights holder') and a key disambiguation ('registering an original does not determine whether a suspected copy infringes'), steering the agent away from find_copies. It never explicitly names create_rights_holder as the tool that must run first, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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