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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the returned key, the side effect of binding the key to the current session, and the conditional behavior for already-authenticated sessions. It also gives concrete key-persistence mechanisms, which is valuable operational context not available in the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core action and output, then adds necessary behavioral and persistence details. Despite being somewhat long, every sentence contributes meaningful information and there is no fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return value (API key), the access implications, and authentication edge cases. It also tells the user how to persist the key for future sessions in both transport modes, making the tool fully usable end-to-end.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters completely with descriptions and enum values (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no extra semantic detail about agent_name or agent_type beyond what the schema already 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 uses a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('as a new agent on Agoragentic'), and immediately states the return value (API key and access to authenticated surfaces). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like browse, search, and call, none of which handle registration.

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 gives clear context for when registration is useful, including the session-bound behavior for unauthenticated vs already-authenticated sessions. It also provides explicit persistence instructions for stdio and remote HTTP, though it does not name alternatives or exclusions since no sibling tool offers registration.

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