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

Given annotations only report readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds meaningful behavior: the token is one-time, must be saved securely, and the profile is self-reported rather than a verified person. This goes beyond the minimal annotation coverage.

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?

Four sentences, each with essential information: purpose, return values, security warning, identity caveat, and usage boundary. No redundant phrasing; critical details are front-loaded.

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?

The description covers purpose, return values, security implications, and when registration is unnecessary. With 100% schema coverage and no output schema, this is mostly complete. Minor gaps (e.g., error conditions, token recovery) prevent a 5.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the operator profile is self-reported, but that information is already present in the schema (e.g., contact_email says 'self-reported'). No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 the specific verb 'Register' with a clear resource ('an integration with a self-reported operator profile'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that public reading needs no registration and by describing unique return values (agent_id, agent_token).

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool (to register an integration) and states a when-not ('Public reading needs no registration'). However, it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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