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

Annotations only declare the generic write/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), while the description adds real behavioral context: auth requirements, the one-time clientSecret return with its aas_ prefix, and the specific failure modes (subscription_required, quota_exceeded, rate_limited). The rate_limited disclosure also reinforces the non-idempotent annotation rather than contradicting it.

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 long but front-loaded with purpose and routing, then auth, then return/error behavior. Nearly every sentence carries information an agent needs; only the secret-prefix aside ('aas_, not aa_') borders on trivia, so it falls just short of maximal efficiency.

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 correctly compensates by naming the return values (clientId, clientSecret once) and the error codes an agent may encounter. Combined with the auth and default-behavior notes, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 a baseline of 3 applies, but the description goes further by explaining the consequence of omitting post_logout_redirect_uris (each redirect origin's / and /login are allowlisted) and clarifying the PKCE meaning of public_client. That is genuine added meaning beyond the schema text, though it does not cover every parameter.

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 verb and resource ('Register an OIDC relying-party client that uses CorroborateMe as the identity provider') and immediately scopes it against the sibling behavior of MCP hosts using dynamic client registration. An agent can distinguish this from keys_create, integration_upsert, and the other siblings without opening a schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use ('Use this for your app's own OIDC login') and when-not ('MCP hosts connect through protected-resource metadata and dynamic client registration, not this tool'), plus prerequisites (company API key aa_... or MCP OAuth access token, active plan). Nothing about routing is left to inference.

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