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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses immediate verification, that a scorecard URL and claim token are returned, and that a tenant_key scopes the agent as private. Missing only edge behaviors like idempotency or re-registration handling.

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?

Four dense sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the detection, return, and privacy details in priority order.

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 needn't be fully spelled out, and the description still names them. For a mutation/registration tool with no annotations, it covers the important behavioral points; only idempotency details are missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains 'kind' (auto with /mcp probing, mcp_remote, a2a, hosted) and tenant_key, but leaves name, contact, and description undocumented beyond self-evident naming.

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?

Specific verb (Register) and resource (an agent) with the key input (by URL) stated immediately. It distinguishes the action from siblings like find_agents/verify implicitly by framing it as registration, though it never names those siblings to route between.

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?

Implies when to use it (you have an agent URL to register) and explains the 'auto' detection path, but offers no explicit when-not guidance or comparison against verify/find_agents/report_outcome.

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