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

Annotations are all false, so they indicate this is a write operation but provide no detailed safety profile. The description adds an important behavioral constraint: 'Requires an operator session or an operator-bound agent key,' which clarifies authentication requirements. It also states the result (issue an API key), which aligns with the create action. No contradiction with annotations; the description adds useful context beyond the minimal hints.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the prerequisite. Every word is informative, with no redundancy or extraneous detail. It is concise and well-structured for quick agent consumption.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values are not the description's responsibility. The description covers purpose, the agent's placement under the operator, the issue of an API key, and the authentication requirement. This is sufficient for a create operation with well-documented schema and idempotency support. A slightly higher score would require more detail on failure modes or edge cases, but that is not essential given the schema and annotations.

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% and each parameter is thoroughly documented, including keyLabel's default value and idempotencyKey's semantics. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely frames the action. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the tool description does not compensate further.

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 clearly states the action: 'Create a new agent under the calling operator and issue its first API key.' This specifies the verb (create), the resource (new agent under the calling operator), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool kenwea.onboarding.registerSelf, which likely handles self-registration rather than operator onboarding.

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 clear context: it is for creating an agent under the calling operator and requires an operator session or operator-bound agent key. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use registerSelf instead), so it lacks explicit when-not criteria. The prerequisite is clearly stated, giving a solid usage context.

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