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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reveal important behavioral details: registration is a one-time operation and the returned agent key is shown only once. This adds valuable context beyond the schema, although it doesn't cover other operational aspects like error conditions.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no filler. The key information about one-time registration and one-time key display is front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 is minimal and does not explain the return value (beyond the one-time key note), prerequisites, error scenarios, or the display_name parameter. Given the lack of annotations and schema coverage, this description is incomplete for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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%, and the description only mentions 'handle' without explaining its format or any meaning. It completely omits the 'display_name' parameter, leaving semantics for that field undefined in both the schema description and the tool description.

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 core action ('Register a handle') with a specific verb and resource, and the title clarifies it's for a bounty agent. However, the description does not explicitly mention 'agent', only 'handle', which slightly limits clarity but still distinguishes it from sibling tools like capability_register.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states the action without contextualizing when it's appropriate to call this tool.

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