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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important workflow behavior: the registrant confirms by email, and the media team later checks credentials. It also reinforces that consent must be true, adding context to the mutation. It leaves out return details and duplicate-handling specifics, but the annotations already cover idempotency and open-world behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and audience. Every sentence contributes: scope, form reference, consent requirement, and post-submission workflow.

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 16-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: who it is for, where to find field semantics, consent, email confirmation, and manual credential review. It could say more about what a successful call returns, but the schema and annotations carry most remaining burden.

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 schema already documents all 16 parameters, including consent and enum-driven fields. The description adds only a pointer to get_registration_form for form-equivalent field meanings and repeats the consent requirement, which the schema already states.

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 action and resource: filling in 'Media registration' for a 'journalist or content creator', tied to 'GCS media invitations and news'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling general registration tool register_for_gcs and from subscription/newsletter 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?

It establishes the target audience and context for use, directs the agent to get_registration_form for field definitions, and states the consent prerequisite. It does not explicitly name register_for_gcs as the non-media alternative, but the audience-specific framing provides clear enough routing.

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