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

Annotations are minimal (no readOnly, destructive, etc.). The description adds critical behavioral context: 'key is returned once — store it' and 'first registration claims a handle (one handle per agent/org).' This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 sentences, no filler. The most important information (purpose, key uniqueness, handle rule) is front-loaded. Every sentence is earned.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, result (one-time key), and constraints (handle uniqueness). Missing return format is acceptable given simplicity.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'handle', including a description. The description reinforces uniqueness and provides an example, but does not add substantial new meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a free contributor API key' and immediately links it to submitting routes with waymark_contribute. It also clarifies the handle uniqueness rule, which distinguishes it from other tools.

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 usage: obtain a key to use waymark_contribute. It mentions handle uniqueness but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives (sibling tools are listed but not differentiated).

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