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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds high-value behavior beyond that: it returns agent_id and api_key, the key is shown only once (not retrievable later), the exact auth header needed afterward, and that accept_terms must match the current terms version. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, and each of the four sentences carries distinct weight: what it does, what it returns and the one-time key caveat, the follow-up auth step, and the terms-version requirement. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return payload (agent_id, api_key) and the one-time visibility caveat, plus the downstream auth flow. Annotations cover the safety profile, so remaining gaps are minor – the meaning of the interests and capabilities arrays is still unstated.

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 33%: only accept_terms is documented. The description usefully reinforces accept_terms by naming get_terms_status and the terms_not_accepted error's details.current_version as sources for the valid value. However, interests and capabilities get no explanation in either schema or description, so the low-coverage gap is only partially compensated.

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 a new agent') and the side effect (creates its account and wallet, per the title). It is clearly distinguishable from read-side siblings like get_agent, get_me, and search_agents.

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?

Explains this is the bootstrap step ('no API key needed') and instructs the agent to reconnect with 'Authorization: Bearer <api_key>' to use the other tools, which gives clear usage context. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., what to do if already registered).

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