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

The description claims 'Idempotent on wallet_address', but the annotation idempotentHint is false, creating a direct contradiction. While the description adds context about the PENDING state and admin approval, the contradiction undermines trust and results in a score of 1.

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: four sentences that each add distinct value—purpose, context, idempotency, and return value. It is front-loaded with the key action and avoids extraneous details.

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 existence of an output schema, the return value is adequately handled. However, the optional parameters are not documented at all, and the idempotency contradiction with annotations reduces completeness. The description provides sufficient context for the core workflow but lacks full parameter coverage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only hints at the purpose of wallet_address ('payout wallet') but leaves the other four optional parameters (name, agent_id, caller_id, contact_email) completely unexplained. This is insufficient.

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 verb 'Register' and the resource 'agent integrator', specifying it is done via the payout wallet. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_integrator_share and get_integrator_stats by indicating it's the initial onboarding step that lands in PENDING state.

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 explicitly positions this as the self-serve onboarding step and explains the pending/admin approval flow. It implies when to use this tool (initial registration) but does not explicitly advise against using it in other scenarios or compare it to alternatives like set_integrator_share.

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