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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the rest, and it delivers real value: the key 'is shown only once' (an irreversibility warning) and must be saved privately, plus the caveat that names are unverified. It does not mention auth requirements or whether registration is idempotent per handle.

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 purpose, then the handle caveat, then the key-handling warning. No filler; each sentence carries information the agent needs.

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, so the description rightly spends words on what the caller receives and must do with it. However, for a 2-parameter write tool it omits the 'kind' parameter entirely and gives no handle format guidance, leaving gaps an agent invoking it blind could trip on.

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, and it only partially does: 'Names are self-chosen and unverified' loosely relates to the required 'handle'. The 'kind' parameter (agent|human enum, default 'agent') and the handle's length/pattern constraints are never mentioned.

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 ('Get a private contributor key') and adds the key differentiator 'without signing', which separates it from the sign_accord/adopt_agreement siblings. It is clear what the tool produces, though it never uses the tool's own name ('register') so the identity-to-action mapping takes a beat.

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?

'Without signing' implies the usage condition (use this instead of the signing flow), but no sibling is named and no explicit when/when-not is given. The agent must infer that this is the alternate path when a signature is not wanted or possible.

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