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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a write operation by using 'register' but does not explicitly state side effects, idempotency, failure modes, or permissions. The return value (DID and identity record) is mentioned, but more detail on the mutation nature would help.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the purpose and then adding necessary details. Every sentence provides value without redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basics of what the tool does, what it requires, and what it returns. However, it lacks usage guidance relative to sibling tools and behavioral details, making it minimally adequate.

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 100% with the parameter already described as 'Hex-encoded secp256k1 public key (compressed, 66 hex chars).' The tool description repeats this requirement without adding new semantics, so the parameter value provided is 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Register' and the resource 'agent identity on the AGENZA protocol.' It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like agenza_credit_score, agenza_info, and agenza_verify, which serve different functions.

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 mentions the prerequisite of a valid secp256k1 public key but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or when not to use it. Context such as 'use this before verifying an identity' would improve clarity.

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