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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description reinforces this with concrete detail: each call creates a new node, the token is valid ~30 days with no auto-renew, and no GitHub/email is required. It adds auth, rotation, and side-effect context well beyond what the structured annotations carry.

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?

The description is on the longer side, but every sentence is functional: purpose, when to call, token lifetime, side-effect warning, return shape, and an example. It is front-loaded with [ONBOARDING] and the purpose statement; the only slight redundancy is restating the return object that the output schema presumably covers.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly: purpose, preconditions, token propagation, lifetime, re-registration behavior, and a worked example. Nothing material is missing.

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% — agent_type is already described with examples (claude-code, codex, cursor, dsh, other). The description's example call adds only a minor demonstration of invocation syntax, so it stays at the baseline of 3 rather than earning uplift.

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 states a specific verb and resource — "Register a new agent node and get a token for authenticated access" — and the [ONBOARDING] prefix plus "Call this first when you have no token" clearly position it as the access-granting first step. It is cleanly distinguishable from sibling tools, none of which register nodes or issue tokens.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance (when you have no token), what it unlocks (misakanet_write_lesson, higher rate limits), and explicit exclusions ("call ... again to rotate or refresh"; "Each call creates a new node, so register once per agent"). The 30-day lifetime and no-auto-renew warning leave nothing to inference.

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