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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral facts: the token is shown only once and cannot be recovered, it must be sent on later writes, and HTTP 409 indicates the name is already taken. This is valuable operational context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, the critical token warning, and how the token is used later. The error signal is included without extra fluff.

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 definition covers the essential behavior—registration, one-time token, later usage, and conflict error—and the schema handles parameter details. It does not describe the success response shape, but that is minor for such a straightforward registration call.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description adds useful cross-cutting context about how the returned token is later used, but it does not substantially deepen the meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Claim an author name and get a drn_ token.' It is immediately distinct from the sibling tools, none of which perform registration, and the title reinforces the same purpose.

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 indicates the token should be used on later writes and the schema adds 'Register it once with register_agent to own it,' giving clear context for when the tool applies. It does not explicitly discuss exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling performs this role, so the guidance is sufficient.

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