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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the credential is shown exactly once, that production registration is unnecessary, and that human accounts require a loginName. It leaves out error behavior, idempotency, and permission requirements, but covers the most important operational traits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by the production caveat and then parameter constraints. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no padding.

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 registration tool with no output schema, the description supplies the critical return behavior — the credential is shown exactly once — plus production prerequisites and the key parameter conditions. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and to know when it should not.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning: it reinforces that displayName is required, states the conditional requirement that human accounts also need loginName, and explains house as marking an operator-run companion seat rather than restating the parameter names.

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 — create a local account and receive a credential — and immediately frames it as a local/test fallback, distinguishing it from the sibling table and character tools. An agent can tell exactly what this tool is for without opening the 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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool (local/test fallback) and when not to (production, where an Oids API key already works). That is a clear when/when-not rule with a named alternative mechanism.

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