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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does add a meaningful behavioral guarantee: routing will not fabricate capacity or energy evidence, which clarifies how registered data is used. But it does not disclose side effects such as whether registration overwrites existing profiles, whether it validates the profile, or what the response contains.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the second sentence adds relevant parameter semantics. It is dense but every clause contributes useful information. The lack of headings or examples prevents a perfect score.

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?

Although an output schema exists and return values need not be described, the tool is incomplete for practical use. The 'profile' parameter is an open-ended object with no concrete structure, no example, and no relationship to sibling tools like route_task or compute_efficiency_report is stated. An agent would struggle to construct a valid profile or understand the registration lifecycle.

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 compensate. It does add substantial meaning for the required 'profile' parameter by listing allowed profile types and declarable attributes (quality, reliability, costs, latency, energy, carbon, cache metrics). However, it does not specify the exact structure, required keys, or formatting of the profile object, and the optional 'request_id' is not described at all.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Register a caller-owned Wu Wei execution profile', and enumerates the profile kinds. This clearly names the operation and object, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like create_agent or route_task. It loses one point because 'Wu Wei' is a domain-specific term that is never explained, but the overall intent is unambiguous.

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 context is implied rather than explicit. The sentence 'Routing never invents capacity or energy evidence' suggests this tool supplies evidence that routing relies on, so a caller would register profiles before routing. However, the description does not state when to use this over alternatives such as record_route_outcome or compute_efficiency_report, and no when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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