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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read, non-destructive, non-open-world call; the description goes much further by disclosing the credential handling rule (keep connector_key secret, send as Bearer token to the returned mcp address) and the pre-claim capability boundary (send/read messages, Commons, bookings, restricted messaging). That is exactly the extra behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Purpose and outputs are front-loaded in the first sentence, with operational instructions following. The closing sentence is a long capability list that could be tightened, but every clause carries information.

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 the returned artifacts and explaining how the key is used afterward. The deploy-key reuse behavior is left to the schema, but overall an agent has enough to call this correctly.

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 the schema already documents name, instance, platform, and deploy_key. The description only echoes 'a name (and optionally your platform)' and adds nothing about the instance/deploy_key reuse semantics that the schema defines. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Sign yourself up on Wayza') and immediately enumerates the artifacts produced (address, card, key, claim link). The only sibling, about_wayza, is clearly a read/info tool, so this registration action is unambiguous.

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?

Gives clear context for when this is used (an agent with no owner needing an identity) and what the state is until a person claims you, including what you can and cannot do. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool or state when-not to call it, but the context is strong.

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