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

Annotations only flag it as non-read-only and open-world; the description adds genuinely new operational context — the relayer pays gas, the registry re-verifies the signature on-chain, and a new agentId is returned (important since there is no output schema). It does not cover failure modes or resubmission behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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 short sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two facts an agent cannot get from structured fields (gas payer, on-chain re-verification, return value).

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?

Given no output schema, stating the returned agentId is a meaningful addition, and the nested registration object is fully covered by the schema. Missing only error/idempotency behavior for a mutation with an on-chain side effect.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that. Baseline 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 ('Submits a signed registration') and its placement in the workflow is inferable from the prepare_* sibling set. It does not name prepare_registration directly, so the pairing is only explicit inside the schema rather than the description.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent must infer that this is the terminal step following prepare_registration. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite call-out, and no mention of what happens if a registration was already submitted.

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