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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds meaningful detail: credentials are injected server-side, tools become namespaced, secret_alias maps to a vault key/OAuth grant, open servers are allowed by omitting it, and a logged-in identity is required. This goes well beyond the 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The additional sentences about namespacing, secret_alias, authentication, and the cap are all relevant and non-redundant. It could be slightly tighter, but every sentence 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?

For a registration tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what registering does, how credentials are handled, the auth requirement, and the cap. It does not describe the return value or duplicate/cap-exceeded behavior, but the provided context is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly in most cases.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that the registered server's tools will appear as <slug>_<tool> and clarifying that secret_alias names a vault key/OAuth grant and can be omitted for open servers. This supplements the schema rather than merely repeating it.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Register an external MCP server behind your Rokha GATEWAY.' It clearly distinguishes this from listing tools like gateway_list by explaining the registration effect: the server's tools become namespaced as <slug>_<tool> on the gateway endpoint.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you want an external MCP server exposed through the Rokha gateway with server-side credential injection. It also notes the logged-in identity requirement and the cap of 20, which helps an agent decide whether this is the right action. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough.

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