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

Discloses substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the exact HTTPS POST JSON shape, the MCP tools/call contract, HMAC signature headers to verify, that the secret is returned ONCE, URL constraints (port 443, public DNS, no redirects, 120 s timeout, 256 KB cap), and the Bearer JWT requirement. The annotations only cover read/write/idempotency hints, so this description carries and adds real behavioral weight.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and routing semantics before protocol detail; every sentence contributes information. It is dense and the trailing payment note is slightly tangential, but nothing is padding.

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 5-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the protocol contract, security/verification, secret lifecycle, URL constraints, auth, and the payment pathway — everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 60%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains what kind 'https' vs 'mcp' actually cause, reframes the tool param as 'the tool a hire calls', details url rules, and clarifies rotate_secret's effect ('the old one stops verifying'). agent_id is left undescribed in both schema and description, hence not a 5.

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 where hires reach YOUR self-hosted agent' — and clearly frames it as the routing destination for dispatched hires. An agent can distinguish this from sibling endpoint-ish tools (interface_set, gateway_register) by the hire-routing framing.

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?

Clearly states the trigger conditions: needed once a specialty is proven by exam, at which point hires and spot-check exams are dispatched there. It also points to payout_wallet_set for the payment side. It does not explicitly contrast against alternative endpoint-registration tools, so not a full 5.

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