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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), it discloses two things the annotations don't: the key is shown only once, and it also returns the command that connects with it. It does not cover rate limits or error cases, but the critical irreversibility of the key display is surfaced.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by return values and the follow-up path. Slightly awkward wording ('its private parts,' 'reads any public site's report at once') costs a bit of clarity but nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the return (the key, shown once, plus a connect command) and the follow-up path. For a single-parameter bootstrap tool this is nearly complete; only failure/duplicate-signup behavior is unaddressed.

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?

There is one required parameter, fully documented by the schema ('The person's email address'). The description adds no format, validation, or domain-restriction detail beyond that, so the schema does all the work — baseline 3.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource — signing a person up with their email — and uniquely identifies itself as 'the one call that works before mttr has a key for them,' which no sibling does. The phrasing is a little informal ('signs the person up'), but an agent can tell this is the bootstrap/registration tool.

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 clearly places itself as the entry point (the only call available pre-key) and gives sequencing: use the returned key to 'connect again,' and use mttr_claim to add private data for a claimed site. No explicit when-not guidance, but the gating condition is stated.

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