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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the owner-only permission requirement and the critical one-time exposure of the client_secret ("shown ONCE — store it securely"). It omits rate limits, reversibility, or what happens to the client after registration, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the security-relevant return behavior, then the permission constraint. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining the returned credentials and their one-time nature. Combined with 100% schema coverage, an agent has what it needs, though permission/ownership semantics beyond "Owner-only" are left thin.

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 name, scopes, and redirect_uris are already fully documented in the schema (including scope enum and redirect URI rules). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ("Register a new OAuth2 client") and its purpose (letting a third-party app authenticate users). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like list_oauth_clients and revoke_oauth_client.

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 scope of use is implied (registering a client for Login with Kangram) and it flags "Owner-only", but it never explicitly states when to use this versus alternatives such as revoke_oauth_client or list_oauth_clients, nor any prerequisites for the flow.

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