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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context by stating that no Zambo Pass is required and that the wallet address is for payouts. However, it does not disclose registration side effects, idempotency, or what happens on duplicate registration, which are important for a registration/write action.

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 opening sentence is concise and front-loaded, but the 'When to use' section is redundant and tautological, adding little information. The description could be tightened by removing the generic condition and focusing on concrete registration behavior and eligibility.

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 simple registration tool, the description covers the core inputs and the key eligibility point (no Zambo Pass required). The output schema covers return values. Still, it omits behavioral expectations such as whether registration is immediate, persistent, or limited to once per agent, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 baseline is 3, but the description introduces a confusing mismatch: it says to provide a 'partner_id' while the schema defines 'agent_id.' This could mislead an agent into looking for a non-existent parameter. No additional semantic value is added beyond what the schema already documents.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Register as a Zambo partner.' The additional context about wallet addresses and payouts makes the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like partner_stats, though overlap is minimal.

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 includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When not to use' sections, which is helpful. However, the guidance is largely generic and tautological ('when the user's request matches this capability'), and it does not name specific alternative tools or concrete scenarios beyond 'missing required inputs' and 'safer read-only route.'

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