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

Annotations cover the safety profile, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: secrets are shown once, the initial cap is $0, paying raises the cap, and each success creates a new agent. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot express.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, covering setup, secret handling, delivery, and follow-up in a few packable sentences. Slightly conversational/parenthetical, but every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining what the call returns (agent key, ask link, both shown once) plus the post-signup workflow. Complete for this complexity.

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 83%, so the schema already documents the fields well. The description only adds that an ask is optional-but-recommended ('ideally, an ask'); it gives no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 ('sign yourself up', get an agent key and ask link) and immediately distinguishes itself from join_with_code via 'nobody gave you a code'. An agent can tell this apart from the other join/ask siblings without inspecting schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-use condition ('you found the wall yourself and no code'), a when-not ('do not repeat it after a success'), a rate limit ('three sign-ups per network per day'), and the follow-up path ('send it only to them, then wait (check_ask)'). This routes the agent unambiguously.

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