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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the weight; it meaningfully expands on this by disclosing that the call provisions a wallet, identity, LLM access and PCC tooling in one shot, which is far more informative than the generic write hint. It still omits whether the invite code is single-use, whether the action is reversible, and what account state is created from the email/password.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the action and its scope are front-loaded in the first sentence and the provisioning effects follow immediately.

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 multi-parameter provisioning mutation with no output schema and no annotations beyond the write hint, the description omits what the caller gets back (account ID, wallet address, API key) and any failure modes. It covers the purpose and effects adequately but leaves the agent without return-value expectations.

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% and all four parameters (inviteCode, email, password, name) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning such as invite-code format, password constraints, or whether name is required for provisioning.

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?

States a specific action and resource ('agent onboarding with an invite code') and enumerates the side effects (wallet, identity, LLM access, PCC tools), which separates it from the many registration/provisioning siblings. It does not explicitly name the nearest alternative (check_invite), so sibling differentiation is only partly achieved.

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 phrase 'onboarding with an invite code' implies the trigger condition, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention that check_invite should be called first to validate the code, and no statement about prerequisites or what happens if the code is invalid or already redeemed.

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