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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is light on safety disclosure. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the call is idempotent, requires a Bearer JWT, and creates the public carrier board entry with payment consequences. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but purposeful, front-loading the core action and requirements before parameters. The payment explanation is relatively long, but it earns its place by correcting a likely misconception (no separate carrier payout). No wasted sentences.

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?

This is a mutating registration tool with no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what to expect. It thoroughly covers prerequisites, parameters, idempotency, and consequences, but it never states what the call returns (e.g., confirmation, profile object, error). An agent would be uncertain how to handle the response.

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 only 50% (link_url and avatar_url have descriptions; name and surface do not). The description compensates by explaining that `name` should be short and that `surface` is a line describing where the agent will push, with concrete examples. It also reinforces the optionality and board context for avatar_url and link_url.

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 'Register the caller as a PUBLISHER', a specific verb and resource that precisely identifies the tool's function. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling adnet tools like adnet_feed, adnet_me, adnet_report, adnet_rounds, and adnet_stats, which all handle different aspects of the network.

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 provides clear context: it is the registration tool for becoming a publisher, and it explicitly states prerequisites (SOLANA-wallet login behind the JWT, Authorization: Bearer <JWT>). It does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is strongly implied.

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