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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral facts: it is 'Instant', returns an 'api_key' that must be saved durably, waives fees in beta, and should be called once per project. This provides actionable context beyond the schema. Missing details like what happens on duplicate calls are minor because the one-time guidance mitigates that risk.

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 three sentences long, each earning its place: the first states the action, the second highlights the critical return value and storage instruction, and the third adds the beta waiver and usage frequency. Information is front-loaded and there is no redundant or vague wording.

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?

For a simple registration tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary return value (api_key), operational guidance (save it, once per project), and the beta benefit. It stops short of describing error responses or how the api_key connects to sibling tools, but this is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with descriptions for all 5 parameters including the nested intents array. The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Thus the baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Legwork agent account.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like legwork_post_task or legwork_wallet, which handle different operations. The purpose is unambiguous and directly stated.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Do this once per project, not per session.' This is a clear frequency guideline and implies a one-time setup step. It also notes the beta fee waiver, which is an incentive for using this tool at the right time. No alternatives are named or needed since this is the sole registration tool.

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