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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the hard 31-day window limit and the paging model, which are not visible in the schema or annotations. It doesn't describe rate limits or the per-record return shape, keeping it below a 5.

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 carries the scope, the constraint, the paging model, and the endpoint. The raw REST path (POST /reporting/registrations/dates/{begin}:{end}) is developer-oriented noise an agent cannot use, slightly diluting an otherwise tight statement.

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 should carry more of the return contract; it covers paging mechanics but says nothing about what a registration record contains or that include_contact changes the payload shape (that detail lives only in the schema). The 31-day cap and paging are covered, so it is minimally viable but not complete.

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%, so limit/offset/end_date/begin_date/include_contact are already documented with defaults, bounds, and the next_offset paging tip. The description reinforces the range semantics but adds no parameter-level detail the schema lacks, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Peer-to-peer registrations between two dates") plus the scope (inclusive range, 31-day cap), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like qgiv_list_recent_registrations. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

It supplies real operating guidance — the 31-day-per-call cap and offset/limit paging — which an agent needs before invoking. However, it never says when to pick this over qgiv_list_recent_registrations or qgiv_get_registration, so the choice among date-range vs. recent vs. single-record tools is left to inference.

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