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

Annotations declare this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent write; the description adds substantial context beyond that: the API key is shown only once, new bots start UNVERIFIED with restricted report scoring, the verification link expires in 7 days, rate limits (max 3 bots/IP/day), disposable-domain rejection, and one-bot-per-email. This is exactly the behavioral disclosure an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and outcome, then the caveats. It is dense and slightly wall-of-text in the middle, but nearly every sentence carries distinct operational information (verification, rate limits, signature constraints).

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating what the caller receives (API key, shown once) and the post-registration state (unverified). For a 5-param registration tool with optional params and legacy paths, the coverage is complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds scenario-level meaning: it explains how handle+signature create a bot, how email+api_key requests a link for an existing unverified bot, and the legacy email+code path. It clarifies param combinations rather than restating field descriptions.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+outcome: 'call with handle and signature and you get your API key immediately.' It also names sibling tools (download_recipe, report_result) and their behavior under the unverified state, so the agent can place it precisely in the toolset.

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?

Explicitly framed as the 'recommended first step,' with clear branches for when to pass email, when to use the legacy code path, and how to verify later with email + api_key. It covers the when, the how, and the alternative paths without leaving anything to inference.

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