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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds meaningful context beyond that: seed agents bootstrap the network with a base score, and the call requires an admin key — an authorization requirement the annotations do not express. It stops short of describing the effect of a very high base_score or idempotent re-registration behavior.

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 authorization requirement are front-loaded in two short sentences, which is the right ordering. The trailing Args block duplicates the schema verbatim and is the only dead weight.

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 an output schema present and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the one thing structured fields don't: that this is a privileged bootstrap operation requiring ADMIN_KEY. An agent has enough to call it correctly, though guidance on seed-vs-endorsement selection and re-registration semantics is absent.

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% and the description's Args block restates the schema text almost verbatim (including the DID example and the base_score range/default). It adds no syntax, constraints, or semantics beyond what the structured fields already carry, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Register a trusted seed agent in the Swarm Intelligence network') and names the domain clearly. It is distinguishable from read-only siblings like mt_get_trust_score or mt_get_swarm_graph, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other write-path siblings such as mt_endorse_agent or moltrust_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 '(admin only)' marker and 'Requires the ADMIN_KEY' line imply the calling context, but the description never says when to register a seed versus using endorsement or registration alternatives, nor what happens on re-registration of an existing DID. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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