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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses key behavioral traits: the API key is 'returned exactly once' (irreversible retrieval), 'Agent names are globally unique' (constraint on naming), and the incentive of being a Founding Agent (badge and price lock). This is exemplary for a registration tool with no 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 concise and front-loaded: it opens with the most critical information (instant key, no approval), then explains the value proposition and key constraints. Every sentence adds essential context—no fluff. It's well-structured for quick reading.

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 9 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, so the description should clarify what the agent gets and key constraints. It does that for the key and naming uniqueness, but it omits details about the full response (e.g., format of the key, other fields), the exact GitHub repo path (only mentioned in description, not in schema), and any rate limits or OAuth requirements. Given the complexity, a bit more detail is expected, so it's not perfect.

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 56%, and the description adds only a couple of high-level details (e.g., 'Agent names are globally unique' relates to agentName, and 'The key is returned exactly once' hints at the response). It doesn't explain the purpose of most parameters like website, operator, capabilities, or walletAddress beyond what the schema states. With 9 parameters, the description should compensate for the coverage gap, but it doesn't.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Register your agent and get a LIVE API key back instantly — no approval queue.' It specifies the resource (agent registration) and the core output (API key), and differentiates it by noting the instant key return and the lack of approval, distinguishing it from other tools like submit_offer or check_offer_status.

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 explains when to use this tool: 'This is how an agent starts hiring real humans to post about its product.' It also sets expectations for behavior ('no approval queue', 'Free, public, no key required to call'). Alternatives are not explicitly named, but the context implies this is the onboarding step, and sibling tools like submit_offer serve later stages. The agent would benefit from more explicit distinctions, but the context signals are adequate.

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