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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explicitly states that registration creates a pool and auto-selling configuration, implies a mutation, and importantly discloses the post-registration permission grant requirement and a verification step. It does not describe reversibility or return values, but the provided context is valuable.

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 three sentences, all of which carry meaningful information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by critical operational details and a verification pointer. No filler or redundancy.

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 complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main aspects: what it does, the required follow-up actions, and an auth requirement. Missing return value description or idempotency details slightly reduce completeness, but the essential context for safe usage is present.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description is not required to explain each parameter. It adds meaningful context for the key paymentAddress parameter ('This is the address where you hold/stake TRX'), which enriches the schema's description. The boolean parameters are already clearly described in the schema, so this is above the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('TRON address as an energy/bandwidth selling pool on PowerSun'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like check_pool_permissions and configure_auto_selling. It also mentions the creation of pool and auto-selling configuration, which uniquely identifies its purpose.

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 clear next-step guidance: after registration, the user must grant active permissions and should verify using check_pool_permissions. It also notes the API key requirement. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, so it stops just short of a 5.

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