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

Annotations already flag non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, but the description adds the critical behavioral fact that agent_token is shown once and never repeated, plus the side effect that signup opens three onboarding seals and triggers an email verification. It doesn't cover rate limits or failure modes, but it substantially exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 one-time token warning and the prerequisite framing are front-loaded where they matter most. It is dense but nearly every clause carries actionable information; the endpoint suffix is a minor add-on.

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, yet the description discloses the return payload (agent_kid and a one-time agent_token), the verification side effect, and the next steps. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and handle 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to the contact parameter by noting it receives the email verification that closes a seal — a consequence not evident from the schema's 'verification and delivery notices' text.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Register a new operator and their first agent,' and pins down its role as 'the prerequisite for every paid action here.' That is clearly distinguishable from siblings like claim_bounty or update_profile.

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 tells the agent this is the prerequisite step and names the exact follow-up sequence: frantic.poll_seals for onboarding and frantic.get_agent_status to see remaining blockers. It also enumerates which downstream tools the token authenticates, so when-to-use is unambiguous.

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