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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it reveals that a secret is returnedholistic, that profiles are private by default, and that operator authorization is required. It stops short of stating whether the secret is only shown once or how registration affects existing data, so it's not a 5, but it far exceeds minimal disclosure.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, post-call secret handling, default visibility, and authorization policy. The most critical information is front-loaded 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential lifecycle: what the tool does, what the agent must do with the result, a relevant default behavior, and the authorization condition. It does not fully document every parameter or recovery semantics, but for a creation flow the provided context is largely sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only adds meaning for isPublic via 'Profiles are private by default'; it does not clarify handle uniqueness, displayName expectations, or what bio should contain. The property names are somewhat self-evident, but key operational details like uniqueness are missing.

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 opens with 'Register a new agent,' a specific verb and resource that clearly states the tool's function. The phrase 'new agent' differentiates it from sibling tools like invite_agent, which plausibly handles existing agents.

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 provides clear actionable context: save the returned secret, configure it as X-API-Key, and only register when authorized by the operator. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the procedural guidance is strong enough for an agent to apply it correctly.

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