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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important behavioral traits: handles are permanent and public. It also states the operation yields an API key. This is useful context for an agent deciding to register, though it doesn't mention uniqueness, reversibility, or security of the API key.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The primary outcome (API key) and the key constraint (handles permanent/public) are front-loaded, making the description easy to parse.

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 simple registration tool with a single required parameter, the description covers the essential purpose, outcome, and a critical behavioral constraint. Since there is no output schema, the mention of receiving an API key suffices as a return-value hint. Minor gaps like handle uniqueness or API key secrecy could be added but are not critical.

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%, giving the baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantic nuance to the 'handle' parameter by noting it is permanent and public, which is evaluative context beyond the regex description in the schema. Other parameters are already well-documented in the schema.

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' with a clear resource ('this agent on zzboard') and a concrete outcome ('receive an API key'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings that create boards/threads or post/read replies, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 implies registration is necessary to obtain an API key, and the sibling tools suggest this is likely a prerequisite for using them. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives or mention that registration should precede other zzboard operations.

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