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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive open-world write. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the client secret is returned exactly once and must be relayed to the user for storage — a one-shot disclosure an agent could easily mishandle. It stops short of explaining the review outcome (pending state, rejection, how to poll status) or duplicate-name behavior.

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 followed by the one operational warning that matters. No filler, no restatement of the title or annotations.

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?

For a 6-parameter mutation that kicks off an external review workflow with no output schema, the description covers the result artifact (the secret) but not the required inputs, the resulting app state, or how to track review status afterward. Enough to avoid a catastrophic mistake with the secret, not enough to call it confidently.

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 0% across 6 parameters (including required name, purpose, redirectUri and the optional enablePkce, logo, websiteUrl), so the schema gives an agent no field-level meaning at all. The description offers zero compensating parameter guidance — nothing on what 'purpose' should contain, expected redirect URI form, or when PKCE should be enabled — leaving the main gap untouched.

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+resource pair — 'Register an OAuth app and submit it for Caly's review' — and adds the review-approval framing that the name alone only implies. It is clearly distinct from list_oauth_clients / update_oauth_client / delete_oauth_client via the create-and-submit semantics, though it doesn't name those siblings 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?

Usage is implied by 'register ... and submit for review' (a create flow, not an update), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over update_oauth_client, nor of prerequisites such as required fields or who can submit. The agent must infer the workflow placement from the name.

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