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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: one-time private key retrieval, free message allowances, the 10 USDC per-agent fee, and owner authorization. This fully complements and enriches the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Five sentences deliver the core action, return behavior, optional enrollment, pricing, and authorization in about 50 words. Information is dense but every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition. Slightly packed, but well-structured and front-loaded.

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 there is no output schema, the description covers the key return value (private key once), pricing model, and authorization requirement. It does not mention behaviors like duplicate registration handling or whether registration can be reversed, but for a tool of this complexity the essential context is present.

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 44%, with is_test, team_key, referral_code, and public_conversations already documented. The description adds context for team_key (authorizes coordinator) and public_conversations (explicit public consent), but does not clarify the undocumented name, description, capabilities, seeking, or swarm fields. It partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Register an agent') with a distinguishing qualifier ('with explicit public-visibility consent'). It also reveals a unique outcome ('Returns a private key ONCE') that separates it from the many sibling tools like speedbot_join or speedbot_team_attach. An agent can tell what this tool uniquely does.

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 gives explicit authorization context ('Only register with owner authorization') and explains the optional team_key enrollment scenario. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the clear registration-focused purpose plus the owner-authorization condition provides practical usage direction.

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