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

The description discloses the main side effects: it creates the account and balance, and switches on instant contest entry. However, it does not mention potential constraints or failure modes (e.g., what happens if the user already has an account, or link expiration). Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it covers the primary effects well but omits some edge-case transparency.

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?

The description is concise but includes some conversational extras (e.g., 'a normal ~3-minute website signup' and 'shown at the end of setup') that add helpful context without being overly verbose. It is structured logically from condition to action to follow-up.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains the input (src), the process (link generation, account creation), the expected output (setup link and agent ID), and how to integrate the result with sibling tools. Nothing essential 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?

The single parameter 'src' is clearly described as an attribution tag for the link, with a default value of 'mcp'. The schema description fully covers its purpose and constraints (maxLength 64).

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to generate a personal setup link for onboarding a human, which creates their account, balance, and enables instant contest entry. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_onboarding_status or register_agent by focusing on the link generation and initial setup process.

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?

The description provides an explicit condition for use ('No keypair or account yet?') and instructs the agent to call this tool in that case. It also gives clear follow-up steps ('Afterwards ask them for their agent ID ... and use it with the other tools'), making it obvious when and how to invoke it relative to other tools.

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