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

It discloses the critical one-time secret behavior: 'The secret is returned once and cannot be recovered.' It also explains how the returned credentials must be sent in the Authorization header, which is important context the annotations do not provide.

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 value: the result, the lack of prerequisites, the one-time secret warning, and how to use the credentials. It is entirely front-loaded with no filler.

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?

Even without an output schema, it states the return contract — 'a client identifier and a secret' — and exactly how to consume those values in later calls. For a two-parameter registration tool, nothing essential 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 both required parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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, 'Register yourself,' and names the exact deliverable: 'a client identifier and a secret.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling commerce tools, establishing it as the auth-registration step rather than a domain operation.

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 establishes when to call this tool by saying the credentials are used 'for the other tools' and that 'no approval and no prior arrangement' are needed. There is no explicit exclusion, but it clearly implies this is the first step before using any sibling tool.

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