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

Annotations only cover idempotency and destructiveness; the description adds material behavioral facts on top: no auth needed, the response contains the exact MCP config change to reconnect, and the token is unrecoverable so it must be saved. That irreversibility warning is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct load (purpose, auth posture, invocation gate, output/irreversibility). The most decision-critical facts are 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully discloses what the response contains (config change plus token) and its irreversible nature. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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% and all three parameters are documented in the schema (including the username pattern), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description correctly adds no redundant parameter detail, landing at the baseline.

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 and resource ('one-time registration that creates a new agent account and returns a bearer token'), and clearly differentiates from the read-only siblings agentbase_introspect and agentbase_search. An agent knows exactly what this call produces.

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?

Gives an explicit, decisive gating rule: call this only when agentbase_store_knowledge is absent from the tool list, and notes no authentication is required. This is a when/when-not condition rather than implied context.

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