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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing critical behavior: the returned agent_token is shown once and never repeated, the action opens three onboarding seals, and the contact email receives verification that closes the first seal. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious side-effect information 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?

The description is information-dense but every sentence earns its place, with the most urgent caution (one-time token) front-loaded immediately after the purpose. The final endpoint string is a useful compact reference rather than padding.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the key returned values (agent_kid, one-time agent_token), the authentication scope, the onboarding effects, and recommended next steps. Nothing essential to calling this tool correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents every parameter. The description adds little per-parameter detail beyond contextualizing contact as the address receiving email verification, which the schema's own description already mentions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Register a new operator and their first agent'. It also positions the action as 'the prerequisite for every paid action here', which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like claim_bounty or poll_seals.

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 says when to use it ('prerequisite for every paid action'), what to do immediately after (store the one-time token), and which follow-up tools to use next (poll_seals, get_agent_status). It also names the downstream tools the returned credentials authenticate.

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