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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds domain-specific behavioral detail by specifying that the result depends on registration, reservation, or grace status. It does not contradict the annotations and adds meaningful beyond-annotation context, though it stops short of describing all possible return behavior.

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?

One sentence with a clear main clause and a parenthetical giving exact false condition semantics. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers purpose, input semantics via schema, and key result conditions. Since there is no output schema, an explicit 'returns true/false' statement would be slightly clearer, but the false-if phrasing adequately conveys the boolean nature of the response.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the input schema with type, length constraints, and the note that the .agt suffix is optional. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 phrase ('Check whether ... can be registered') and clearly identifies the resource and evaluation criteria (.agt name, false if registered/reserved/in grace). This distinguishes the tool's purpose from sibling tools that likely resolve, manifest, or endpoint-check names.

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 implies the tool is for pre-registration availability checks and adds a temporal qualifier ('right now'), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as agt_resolve or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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