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

The description is rich in behavioral detail: PENDING status, no earnings until admin approval, anti-gaming whitelist, idempotency, and return of integrator stats. However, it directly contradicts the annotations by claiming 'Idempotent on wallet_address' while idempotentHint is false. Per the rubric, this contradiction requires a score of 1 and a contradiction flag.

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 compact and front-loaded. Three sentences deliver the core operation, lifecycle implications, admin approval dependency, idempotency note, and return value with no wasted words.

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?

The description covers the lifecycle, approval gating, and return behavior, and an output schema exists. However, the idempotency contradiction undermines trust, and optional parameters remain undocumented. It is adequate but not fully complete for a five-parameter onboarding tool.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies wallet_address as the 'payout wallet' and idempotency key. The other four parameters (name, agent_id, caller_id, contact_email) are left entirely unexplained, leaving a significant semantic gap for a tool with five parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Register an agent integrator by its payout wallet'. It clearly identifies the operation as the 'Jupiter-integrator self-serve onboarding step', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like register_agent, register_referrer, and register_counterparty_set.

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 provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate: self-serve integrator onboarding, landing in PENDING state, and earning nothing until admin approval. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the onboarding framing strongly implies the intended scenario.

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