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

The annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write operation. The description adds useful context about what is registered into the match index, but it does not explain duplicate handling, overwrite semantics, or indexing side effects, which matter for a non-idempotent registration tool.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It delivers the core action and data scope immediately.

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 annotations cover safety semantics and an output schema exists, the definition remains too thin for a six-parameter mutation tool. It lacks usage context, duplicate or overwrite behavior, and sufficient parameter meaning to guide correct invocation.

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?

The description lists mission, domain profile, constitutional alignment scores, and capacity, giving some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage across six parameters, it omits collective_id and name entirely and gives no format or structure detail for the object-valued fields.

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 names a specific verb (Register) and resource (agent/collective) and explains the destination (match index), so the core action is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as find_matches or intake, which keeps it from a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent could infer registration precedes matching, but that is not stated.

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