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

Annotations declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds real context beyond that: the auto-attachment of a KYA trust score when paymentAddress is supplied, the returned registration status, and the $0.05 cost. It stops short of describing auth/ownership implications of updateToken.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every sentence carries information (required inputs, KYA trigger, return, cost) with little waste.

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 registration mutation with an output schema present, the description covers required inputs, the notable side effect (KYA scoring), and the response. It does not address ownership/update semantics of updateToken, a minor gap given the schema documents it.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by naming the three required params and, importantly, explaining the behavioral consequence of paymentAddress (triggers KYA scoring) beyond the schema's own text.

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 verb+resource: 'Register an AI Agent in the ChainRay A2A Agent Card registry.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like agent.card.discover and agent.card.lookup (read operations). It does not explicitly name siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explains what is required to register but gives no when-to-use guidance, no when-not conditions, and no alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., when to register vs. look up an existing card). Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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