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

Although the description carries rich behavioral detail (monotone index, content addressing, quarantine inheritance), it asserts 'Idempotent — an agent is born once' while the annotations declare idempotentHint=false. That is a direct conflict with a structured hint, which outweighs the otherwise valuable context.

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?

Four short, densely packed sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The telegraphic phrasing of 'Idempotent — an agent is born once' is efficient, though it is exactly where the contradiction with annotations arises.

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 explained, and the quarantine and epoch semantics are covered. But the meaning and expected format of artifact_hash are absent, and the idempotency claim conflicts with the annotation, leaving the agent with an unresolved behavioral question before calling.

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%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning. It explains parent_id's lineage role and implicitly covers agent_id, but artifact_hash (with its empty-string default) is never mentioned, leaving a third of the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Register an agent's birth') and immediately says what is produced: a content-addressed genesis certificate with a monotone index. It is clearly distinct from siblings such as register_artifact, get_certificate, and lineage.

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 usage through constraint statements (epoch 0 = founding cohort; children of recalled/quarantined parents are quarantined at birth), but it never says when to choose this tool over siblings such as register_artifact or lineage, and it names no alternatives.

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