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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the key constraint: the request must be NIP-98 signed with the npub's own key, so only the holder can register that npub. It omits other traits an agent would want -- idempotency, what happens on duplicate registration, or error behavior -- but the auth disclosure is a genuinely valuable addition.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by two tight paragraphs on what an Advocate is and the signing requirement. Every sentence earns its place; the definitional middle paragraph is slightly longer than strictly needed but still functional.

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 description covers the auth prerequisite plus the conceptual scope of the resource. What remains thin is failure/duplicate handling and the concrete distinction from register_operator in instruction terms, but the definition is broadly complete for calling it correctly.

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%, so each of the five parameters is already documented in the schema, including the npub and service identifiers. The description adds only that npub must correspond to the signing key, which is auth semantics rather than parameter syntax, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Register a new Advocate in the DPYC community registry') and then defines what an Advocate is, explicitly distinguishing it from monetized Operators and certification Authorities -- both of which are siblings (register_operator, register_authority). An agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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 definition of an Advocate versus Operators/Authorities implicitly tells the agent when this tool applies, and it states the self-registration precondition clearly. It never names a sibling as the alternative or states a negative condition (e.g., 'do not use for monetized services'), so it falls short of explicit when/when-not routing.

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