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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful output behavior (returns the proof domain and a token, plus the three placement methods: TXT record, well-known file, or verified email), but says nothing about auth beyond session, idempotency, rate limits, or what happens on failure.

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?

A single dense sentence with the input and output front-loaded and no filler. Slightly awkward phrasing ('proof domain the register lists') but appropriately sized.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral info. It covers inputs and outputs well enough, but omits the multi-step claim lifecycle (why a token, how claim_verify follows) an agent needs to use it correctly within the sibling set.

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 coverage is 33% and only the session parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds partial meaning by explaining that the entry is identified by scheme + value (e.g. 'lei'), but gives no format, constraints, or distinctions for the scheme and value fields themselves.

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 action (naming a register entry) and its result (the proof domain and the token to place), which tells an agent this initiates a domain-ownership claim. It is clear enough to identify the resource, but it never explicitly differentiates this from the closely named siblings claim_public, claim_verify, and claim_status.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus claim_public or claim_verify, nor any prerequisite (the session token only being referenced via the schema). The description implies a first step in a flow but never says so, leaving the agent to infer the ordering.

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