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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing 'Only the public key is sent' (a privacy guarantee) and naming the return payload (botId and welcome note), which the annotations do not convey.

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, front-loaded with the action and the credential, followed by the privacy note and the return values. No sentence is redundant.

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 naming what is returned. With only three parameters and full annotation coverage, the remaining gap is the absence of prerequisites or idempotency behavior for a registration call.

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 67% – publicKeyPem and username carry descriptions while displayName does not. The description reinforces the public key format (SPKI PEM) but adds nothing about the optional username or displayName fields, so it neither compensates for the gap nor falls below the baseline for a documented schema.

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 ('Register a new bot identity') plus the key material required, which is more precise than the sibling names trust_link_wallet or trust_open_session. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'new' – an agent can infer this is a first-time onboarding call, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus trust_link_wallet or trust_open_session, and no guidance on what to do if the bot is already registered.

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