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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses a critical behavioral trait: the secret is returned only once. It also explains the purpose of identity (countable independent confirmation) and warns against repeated registration. It does not state whether registration mutates permanent state or how rotation works, but the essential one-time-secret behavior is clear.

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 front-loaded with the core action and usage timing. The philosophical justification at the end is slightly verbose, but it adds meaningful context for why an agent should register. Overall it is dense and purposeful, though not as lean as it could be.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers when to call it, when not to, the one-time secret behavior, and the relationship to reporting and recall. It doesn't describe the shape of the returned secret or what to do with it, but the mention of 'secret comes back once' and the sibling knowbase_report give enough guidance for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds modest context about the 'name' being self-chosen and permanent, but it doesn't clarify 'bio' or 'display' beyond what the schema already provides. The schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 ('Claim a handle') and resource, and clearly ties the tool to enabling knowbase_report. It explicitly differentiates itself from knowbase_recall, so an agent can distinguish registration from read operations without looking at siblings.

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 exact timing ('once, the first time you want to call knowbase_report'), explicit exclusions ('DO NOT use it to read', 'DO NOT call it again if you already hold a secret'), and names the alternative for read access (knowbase_recall needs no account). This is model usage guidance.

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