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

The description explicitly states the tool is read-only and lists exact return values: registration endpoint, requirements (intent binding+domain), rate limit, and Merkle anchor-proof endpoint. It clarifies that registration itself is a separate POST, setting proper expectations.

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 highly concise: two sentences and an example. It front-loads the purpose and includes critical behavioral notes without excess.

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 covers what the tool returns and its read-only nature. Although it lacks explicit authentication requirements for the tool itself and prerequisites, it is adequate for a parameterless read-only info tool.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description need not add parameter info.

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 clearly states the tool returns registration info needed to self-register a pay:agent alias, distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_alias_available or resolve_alias. The purpose is specific: returns endpoint, requirements, rate limit, and anchor-proof endpoint.

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 implies the tool should be used before the credential-gated POST for registration, noting it is read-only. However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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