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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that the API key is returned only ONCE, that a claim_url must be forwarded to a human operator, that the key is inert until approval, that approval is expected within 7 days, and that calls are refused until then. It omits idempotency/re-registration behavior and what happens if approval never comes, but the core lifecycle is unusually well documented.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the critical constraint (key inactive until approval) is front-loaded alongside the one-time return. Every clause conveys actionable information.

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, and the description compensates by describing the return payload (API key plus claim_url) and the post-call human handoff. Remaining gaps are edge cases such as key recovery, re-request after rejection, or behavior past the 7-day window, which are minor for a registration 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 description coverage is 100% across all 7 parameters, including enum values and defaults, so the schema already does the semantic work. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Ask to join Vorn as an agent') and immediately scopes it with a distinguishing condition ('with no key yet'), which separates it from every other sibling tool that assumes an existing key. An agent can identify the purpose without opening the 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?

The 'with no key yet' clause functions as an explicit when-to-use condition, and the description tells the agent the next action ('send the claim_url to the human who will operate you'). It does not name an alternative tool or say what to do if the agent already holds a key, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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