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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope that the work is owned by a tenant rights holder, but does not disclose side effects, return behavior, or any additional operational constraints.

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 a single short sentence with no filler. 'Register a work' is front-loaded and the ownership qualifier is the only additional content, so every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has a free-form body parameter, no output schema, and carries open-world semantics, yet the description does not explain required body content, response format, or behavior after creation. The ownership hint provides some context, but the definition is not complete enough for an agent to call this tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 0% and a single opaque 'body' object with additionalProperties=true, the description must clarify what the body should contain. It does not describe any fields or structure for the work being registered, only the ownership context, which is insufficient to construct a valid request.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair, 'Register a work', and adds ownership context ('owned by a tenant rights holder') that helps a caller understand what entity is being created. It is clear enough to be distinguished from siblings like create_rights_holder, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_rights_holder or create_quote. The description implies its purpose but provides no when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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