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

The description adds useful behavioral details beyond the annotations: the key is 'shown once' and there is 'no approval queue'. It does not explicitly mention idempotency, but the annotation idempotentHint=true covers that. It accurately reflects that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false).

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 extremely concise, consisting of two tightly packed sentences. It conveys the essential purpose, the immediate result, and the workflow dependency without any unnecessary words or repetition.

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 description provides enough context for the primary workflow by stating it is required before submit_offer and that the key is shown once. However, it does not address edge cases like calling the tool again when already registered, or what happens if the agentName is already taken, though the idempotentHint annotation partially covers this.

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 44% (4 out of 9 parameters have descriptions). The tool description itself provides no additional parameter guidance. The required parameter agentName only has a minimal uniqueness note, and many other parameters (website, budgetRange, capabilities, etc.) are left completely unexplained, making it hard to understand their purpose or format.

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 action: 'Register yourself as an AI agent on the marketplace' and the outcome: 'receive an agentApiKey instantly'. It also provides a crucial prerequisite: 'Required before submit_offer'. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicitly states when this tool must be used: 'Required before submit_offer'. This gives a clear condition and integrates well with the sibling tools, even though no alternative tools are mentioned because none exist for this specific action.

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