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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent call, and the description adds genuinely new context: that a visit is persisted and that operator/purpose may be publicly listed on gobeyondclouds.io/agents while contact is never shown. That privacy disclosure is exactly the kind of side-effect information annotations cannot convey. It stops short of stating that repeated calls register additional visits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action stated before the parenthetical detail. The parenthetical is dense but every clause carries real information; nothing 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?

For a 4-param registration tool with no output schema, the description covers the side effect, the privacy implication, and the return value. The only real gap is behavior on repeat calls or on an already-registered agent_name.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for three of four params: operator and purpose may be publicly listed, contact is never shown. Only agent_name goes unexplained, though its meaning is self-evident from the name.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pair ("registers a visit") and states the return value ("returns the service list"), which distinguishes it clearly from read-only siblings like list_ventures and network_stats. It does not explicitly name those siblings, keeping it below a 5.

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 is implied by "Introduce your agent to the network" and by the promise of a service list, which hints this is a first-contact/discovery call. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance or reference to alternatives.

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