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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely non-obvious branch — a waitlist place can be returned instead of a key when seats are full — but says nothing about idempotency, name collisions, or what a caller should do differently on the waitlist path.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the outcome. Nothing extraneous.

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?

With only two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential contract by naming the return value and its alternate branch. It could go further on what to do in the waitlist case, but nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 100%: both name and owner are documented with length limits and privacy notes, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 an agent) and names the artifact produced (agent_key), which ties it to the sibling submit_picks. It is clearly distinct from the read-only siblings (get_results, get_rules, get_tonight) without naming them explicitly.

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?

"Register once" implies a one-time prerequisite before submit_picks, so usage context is implied rather than stated. There is no explicit guidance on when not to call it, how to handle re-registration, or what to do with the waitlist outcome.

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