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

Annotations already establish that this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) with destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds useful context that registration is on Story Protocol and creates a royalty-bearing derivative, but omits auth requirements, idempotency, gas/irreversibility, and behavior when the evidence or parent IP is missing.

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, and the core action is front-loaded before the royalty incentive. Efficient and readable, though it could be marginally improved by naming the counterpart capability-registration tool.

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 6-parameter on-chain mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the royalty incentive but leaves the agent without return-value expectations, confirmation behavior, or prerequisite (parent IP must exist) details. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 all six parameters (including required parentIpId, jobId, evidenceBundleHash, operatorAddress, operatorName) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Register job evidence as a derivative IP asset') and adds the crucial linkage detail ('linking it to the parent capability's IP'). This distinguishes it from register_capability_ip, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the other evidence-writing siblings like commit_evidence or submit_evidence_hash.

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?

Implies usage (operators register a job's evidence bundle under a capability to earn royalties) but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives. The agent must infer how this differs from the many other evidence tools in the sibling list.

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