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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the signing model ('This tool never signs'), implying keys stay client-side, but omits idempotency/re-registration behavior, permission requirements for owner_wallet, rate limits, and what side effects registration triggers (synthetic checks, live score). Partial disclosure for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three tight sentences with the benefit and the workflow front-loaded; the 'never signs' caveat is placed last as the key security note. No filler.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover return values and mutation semantics. It covers the signing workflow well but says nothing about what registration returns (tool ID, score) or how duplicate/updated registrations are handled, leaving real gaps for a 9-param mutation.

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 67%, and the schema already documents protocol, signature, timestamp, schema_url, endpoint_url, and owner_wallet. The description reinforces the signature/owner_wallet relationship but adds no format, validation, or meaning for the undocumented name, category, and description params. Baseline 3, as the schema does most of the work.

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 tool you own') plus the outcome ('real synthetic checks and a live score'), which separates it from siblings like registry_report_tool and registry_lookup. An agent immediately knows this is the registration path, not a lookup or report path.

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?

Provides an explicit ordered precondition: obtain the message via registry_onboarding_message(action=register), sign it with owner_wallet, then call this. It names the exact sibling and the argument needed, leaving no inference about when or how to invoke.

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