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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, but the description adds zero context on top of that. It does not say whether re-registering an existing agent_id fails, overwrites, or is rejected — critical given idempotentHint=false — nor whether registration is reversible.

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?

Short, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy; the '[agents]' tag is a namespace marker, not information. No sentence in the description earns its place because none adds content.

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?

A mutation tool with two required, completely undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations explaining idempotency or uniqueness consequences. The description leaves everything an agent needs to call it correctly unstated.

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 mentions neither parameter. An agent gets no explanation of what agent_id must be (unique? format? scoped to what?) or what capability strings mean or whether they are validated against an allowed set.

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 restates the tool name almost verbatim: 'Register an agent' adds nothing beyond 'agents_register'. It never says what registration accomplishes (identity enrollment? capability cataloguing?) or how it differs from siblings like ratchet_register, sla_register, or reputation_record.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus ratchet_register, sla_register, identity_verify, or any other sibling. No prerequisites, no ordering, no exclusions are stated.

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