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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is admin-only and requires an admin key, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention side effects, reversibility, idempotency, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with no annotation coverage, this is a minimal but acceptable disclosure.

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 succinct and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a clear Args list. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. The admin requirement and the purpose are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's use.

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 purpose, admin authorization, and parameter semantics. An output schema exists (as noted in context), so return values are not the description's responsibility. The description is complete for an agent to call the tool correctly, though it could optionally mention potential errors or prerequisites beyond the admin key, such as whether the DID must already exist.

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%, but the description provides detailed parameter semantics in the Args section. It explains each parameter (did, label, base_score, admin_key) with clear definitions, including the range for base_score (0-100) and its default (80), and the default for admin_key. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'trusted seed agent in the Swarm Intelligence network', and explicitly notes 'admin only'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying that seed agents bootstrap the trust network, which is a unique purpose among the many register-type tools.

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 context: it is for registering seed agents, and it explicitly states 'admin only' and 'Requires the ADMIN_KEY for authorization'. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent would not confuse it with other register tools.

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