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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose key traits: the key is returned only once and must be saved, registration happens only once, and owner consent is required beforehand. It omits rate limits or auth mechanics, but the critical irreversibility/persistence warning is present.

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, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and outcome, followed by the operational caveat and parameter note. Little waste, though the sentences could be slightly tighter.

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 register-style mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies what's needed: the returned values, the one-time nature of the key, and the consent prerequisite. It is reasonably complete, with only the required name/platform/purpose semantics left implicit.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains owner_hint well (optional, an anonymous owner identifier used to merge multiple agents under one owner), but leaves name, platform, and purpose unexplained, which is only partial coverage of four parameters.

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 specific verb and resource (register an agent / 自报家门) and names the concrete outcome — receiving agent_id and agent_key. It distinguishes the tool from the sibling get_agent, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling by name.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use constraint (只需注册一次 — register only once) and a prerequisite (obtain the owner's consent before writing). It does not name alternative tools for other agent-related needs, but the registration context is unambiguous.

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