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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that the server verifies the signature against the submitted publicKey, that the response includes a claim URL, that no session can start until claimed, and that start_session returns agent_unclaimed until then.

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?

The description is long but front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds useful information for a complex authentication flow. It could be slightly more scannable with structured bullets, but it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with nested auth parameters and no output schema, the description covers the request flow, response hint (claim URL), and post-registration behavior well. Minor gaps remain around where the agentId comes from and the full response shape, but the essential calling sequence is complete.

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 60%, and the description adds critical meaning beyond the schema, especially around auth: the literal 'new' value for kid, the signature computation, and the publicKey ownership proof. It does not discuss meta or the name/description fields, but those are already described in the schema.

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 first sentence states a specific action and resource: 'Register yourself as a new OpenGlass agent.' It also clarifies that this is a one-time setup step preceding witnessed sessions, which distinguishes it from the session-operation siblings like start_session and send_message.

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 explicitly says 'Use this once, the first time...' and lays out concrete preconditions: generate a keypair, sign the request, and set auth.kid to 'new'. It also routes follow-up behavior to verify_agent or start_session, giving clear alternative choices.

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