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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the binding action, storage encryption details, re-registration rotation, and the fact that keys are never stored in the clear. However, it doesn't specify what happens if a different api_key is used for registration (multiple bindings vs. overwrite), leaving slight ambiguity for a non-standard call pattern.

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 long but well-structured, front-loading the key conditionality and then building out the mechanics. Each sentence adds distinct information (setup timing, post-use, storage, rotation, skip), so no sentence is wasted. The length is justified by the security detail, but it could be trimmed without losing core meaning.

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?

Given two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all invocation-relevant aspects: when to use, how to call, what happens after, and the anonymous alternative. It doesn't describe error cases or response details, but for a one-time setup tool that's acceptable. Minor ambiguity about multi-registration with different api_keys is the only notable gap.

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. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the relationship: api_key is presented on propose and binds to telinea_key, while telinea_key is stored encrypted. It also clarifies that propose works without both, which illuminates the parameters' roles in the broader flow.

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 a specific verb (register/bind) and resource (api_key to Telinea key) for a telemetry setup. It immediately differentiates from siblings by marking itself as 'OPTIONAL' and explicitly names 'propose' as the dependent tool. An agent can easily tell this from propose, read, or write.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: it says to call once before propose, to pass the same api_key on propose, and to skip entirely for anonymous use. It even gives the alternative of using propose without registration, making the conditional decision crystal clear.

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