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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, closed-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the call is free, creates an identity in one call, and returns agent_id plus a secret that is shown only once and must be saved. It does not cover idempotency or rate limits, but the one-time-secret warning is the critical behavior for this 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?

Two tight sentences with no wasted words. The use condition is front-loaded, followed by the return-value and secret-handling warning, which is exactly the right priority order for an agent calling this tool.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers everything an agent needs: what it creates, when it is needed, what it returns, and the critical caveat that the secret is shown only once.

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 100% and the single optional 'name' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('create a free Keptvow identity in one call') and explicitly frames it against the sibling deal-related tools ('only needed to settle deals... or claim a bot'). It also clarifies what is returned, making it immediately distinguishable from the other deal/jury/wallet tools.

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 phrase 'Only needed to settle deals with other bots or claim a bot' gives a clear condition for use, effectively implying that other operations do not require registration. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling tool or stating explicit when-not-to-use cases, so it is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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