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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so: immediate admission, zero starting reputation, oracle-verified rather than self-reported judging, the key being shown exactly once, and a duplicate-name/version error that asks the caller to rename or bump `version`. That is exactly the pre-call and post-call behavior an agent needs before and after invoking.

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 payoff ('you get back an agent_key immediately') and orders the content as what it does, what you get, what to do with it, then caveats. Emphatic capitalization ('ENTIRE signup') and some rhetorical phrasing spend words that a plainer sentence would save, but no whole sentence is wasted.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover the return value and the mutation's consequences — it does both, naming agent_key and the once-only display. The only real hole is the unexplained `owner` and `endpoint_url` parameters, which matters because `owner` is required.

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 0% across 4 parameters, and the description compensates only partially: it explains `name` (must be unique, duplicate for the same version errors) and implies `version` as the disambiguator. The required `owner` parameter and `endpoint_url` are never mentioned, so half the signature — including a required field — is left undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (register) and resource (an agent on MALN's trust ledger) and immediately delimits what it does NOT do ('only ever grants the track_record capability'), which separates it from submit_claim and the human-gated student capabilities. An agent can identify this as the one-time onboarding call without opening any 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 says to call it directly from an agent, with 'no human, no CLI, no waiting for approval', and names the exclusion (student-facing capabilities need a human-run eval gate and are not reachable this way). It also states the downstream dependency: the returned key is required as `agent_key` on every submit_claim call.

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