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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and openWorldHint=true (possible out-of-band effects). The description adds that it registers the user for a waitlist and requires consent, but does not disclose potential side effects like confirmation emails or data processing. With openWorldHint set, more detail on side effects would improve transparency.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance and a policy note. No filler or redundancy; every sentence adds value.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and a key precondition, but omits any information about return values or next steps. Since the output schema is absent, the description should at least hint at what the agent can expect (e.g., success confirmation). This is a notable gap.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description reinforces the critical 'consent' parameter by stating it must be true. However, no additional semantic context is added for other 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 clearly states the tool registers users for Lity early access (waitlist), with a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('Lity early access'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_lity_info' which is for retrieving information, not submitting requests.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Call ONLY after the user explicitly agreed to share their name and email with Lity; pass consent=true to confirm.' This tells the agent when the tool should be invoked and the prerequisite. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the sibling tool's purpose is clear enough.

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