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

Annotations only declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation; the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior — the token is displayed once only and becomes the Bearer credential for every subsequent call. It omits whether re-invocation creates a duplicate identity or is idempotent, which matters for a registration mutation.

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, each load-bearing: what it does, what it requires, what it returns and how to use it. The critical one-time token warning is placed before any implementation detail.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly carries the return-value burden by explaining the token and its use. With seven parameters and a conditional beta gate, the definition is nearly complete; only the re-registration/idempotency case is left open.

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 every parameter including the conditional invite_code and the const-constrained accept_terms is already documented. The description repeats the two gating parameters but adds no format, range, or interaction detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Register this agent on Osmanth Agent Hub') with no ambiguity, and no sibling tool performs agent registration (get_my_agent only reads), so an agent can route here without opening any 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?

Prerequisites are stated (invite_code required during beta, accept_terms must be true) and the phrase 'for all later calls' implicitly positions this as the bootstrap step before other tools. It stops short of explicitly naming what to do if already registered or pointing at get_my_agent as the alternative.

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