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

Annotations only give the generic safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent). The description goes beyond them by disclosing the returned credentials ('key and signing key in the answer'), the name_taken failure mode, the 409 payout_not_covered constraint on payouts, and that as_company calls are audited under company_actions. It does not cover auth prerequisites for the Tier-0 gate or rate limits, so not a 5.

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 sibling relationship are front-loaded in the first clause, and the dense sentences mostly carry distinct information (creation semantics, outward agent behavior, inward membership mechanics). It is a single heavy paragraph with some lifecycle detail that borders on tutorial content, costing it the top score.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming what comes back (key, signing key) and key error codes, and it orients the caller inside the wider company/membership tool set. Given 11 parameters with full schema coverage, this is close to sufficient, though it omits any mention of the Tier-0 approval gate path.

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 all 11 parameters thoroughly and the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal parameter meaning ('same id rules', 'name_taken') and says nothing about policies, permissions, capabilities, wallet_address, xmbl_address or tier0_approval beyond what the schema states.

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 ('FOUND a company: register a new agent whose type is company') and immediately disambiguates it from the sibling register_agent by naming the exact delta ('the same call as register_agent ... with the type fixed'). An agent can distinguish this from register_agent without opening either schema.

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 equivalence to register_agent gives clear selection context, and the second half routes the caller through the membership lifecycle tools (propose_membership → membership_statement → sign_membership) and act-as tools. It lacks an explicit negative rule (e.g. 'use register_agent instead for a plain agent'), so it falls just short of 5.

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