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

Annotations only declare mutation/open-world/non-destructive; the description adds substantive context beyond them: returned api_key/code/handle exist only locally, nothing is written to webaz.xyz, consent is mandatory, and placement_id/sponsor_id are not set. It also discloses that referral attribution requires a separate browser share-link flow, which is critical behavioral knowledge.

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-loads the mode-dependent framing and uses bullets to separate concerns, with no filler sentences. It is dense and multi-topic, which borders on over-stuffing, but each line (consent, roles, referral caveat, region default) carries distinct decision-relevant information.

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?

For a mutation tool with open-world hint and no output schema, the description covers return values (api_key/code/handle), the write/no-write distinction per mode, consent requirements, and role constraints. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely and correctly is 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying role semantics ('arbitrator is admin-granted; reviewer has no grant path') and the region default ('region defaults global'). Remaining details (name/shop name, region enum values) are already in the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Mode-dependent registration') and immediately partitions behavior into LIVE NETWORK vs sandbox, which no sibling tool covers. An agent can identify this as the account-creation tool distinct from webaz_connection_status or webaz_info without opening the 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?

Explicitly states what happens in each mode (no account created on live; local-only account in sandbox) and sets a hard precondition ('Consent required ... Never auto-register from a generic shopping request'). It also names the alternative path ('Connect an existing account with OAuth or an account credential') for agents that only need auth.

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