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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the api_key is returned only once and must be stored, that every paid action requires it as a Bearer token, and that new agents start at zero balance. It omits idempotency/rate-limit or whether names must be unique, minor gaps for a create operation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the return value, then scope semantics, then the next step. No filler sentences, though the three-clause density is slightly packed for a two-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still notes the api_key. It covers scopes, auth usage, and the correct next tool, leaving only edge cases like duplicate names unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does by enumerating the meaningful scope values ("buy_inference", "sell_compute") that the schema does not document with an enum. The `name` parameter is left implicit but is self-explanatory, so the critical gap is covered.

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 — registering a new agent on Aether — with the qualifying detail that it is self-serve and requires no invite. It also points at the correct follow-up sibling (get_funding_instructions), but there is no other registration-like sibling to contrast against, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Clearly signals the context for use: a brand-new agent needing an identity, after which get_funding_instructions should be called. It does not state any when-not condition (e.g. don't re-register an existing agent), so it falls short of a full 5.

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