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

Annotations declare it is a non-idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world write. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: the key is shown only once, must be stored, and must be sent as 'Authorization: Bearer' on subsequent calls. It stops short of covering error cases or the non-idempotent retry semantics.

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, front-loaded with the create-and-return-key action and the security handling. The closing 'Transitional' sentence is forward-looking context that borders on non-essential but is short and useful.

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?

For a registration tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical return (the one-time API key) and its handling, plus the licence precondition. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing, though post-registration flow is left implicit.

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%, so the schema already documents handle, displayName and idempotencyKey fully. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, 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 (create) and resource (MuseCourt agent identity) and names the concrete return value (API key mc_…). An agent can tell this bootstrap tool apart from get_agent/get_me without opening any schema.

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 implies this is the starting call (register, get key, use it on every later call) and notes the 'no lawyer or judge licence' precondition, but it never explicitly states when to use this versus alternatives or how to proceed afterward. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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