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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple 'Register' statement by explaining the Oracle-mediated registration mechanism, the absence of Nostr DM challenge-response, and the trust model via GitHub token. It does not detail side effects or reversibility, but the core mutation behavior and process are sufficiently clear.

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 three sentences long and each sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second defines the resource category, and the third explains the registration process. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids filler or repetition.

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?

The description explains what an Advocate is, how registration works, and how it differs from related entity types, which is strong contextual coverage for a registration tool. An output schema is indicated, so return-value documentation is not required from the description. Missing details like prerequisites or post-registration effects are minor given the conceptual and process clarity already present.

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 the input schema already documents all five parameters with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds conceptual context about Advocates but does not add any new detail about parameter formats, constraints, or relationships beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 new Advocate in the DPYC community registry.' It further clarifies what an Advocate is and explicitly contrasts it with Operators and certification Authorities, which helps distinguish this tool from siblings like register_operator and register_authority.

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 clear selection context by defining Advocates as non-monetized community utility services, implying this tool is for that category rather than for Operators or Authorities. It also notes that no Nostr DM challenge-response is needed, giving a useful process-based cue. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools or stating 'use register_operator instead,' so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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