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

Annotations only tell the agent this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: operator authorisation is mandatory, terms must be accepted, three sessions are free, and registration does not authorise payment. It still omits what happens on success (e.g. account/token creation), but the auth and cost boundaries are valuable.

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, dense sentences with no filler, and the mandatory preconditions are front-loaded. The only weakness is that the actual action being performed is never stated up front.

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 mutation with no output schema and only minimal annotations, the description covers prerequisites and pricing limits reasonably well but leaves the agent unaware of the outcome of registration and of the 'name' parameter's role.

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 carry the load. It maps meaning onto two of the three parameters (operator_authorized via 'operator authorisation', accept_terms via 'acceptance of the published terms'), but the 'name' parameter is never explained and value formats/types are undocumented.

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 verb 'Register' plus the tool name implies registering an agent, but the description never actually states what the tool does or what it produces; it mostly enumerates preconditions. It also fails to distinguish this from siblings such as eclypse_account or eclypse_session beyond a passing 'reuse an existing account'.

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?

'Register only with operator authorisation and acceptance of the published terms' gives a clear precondition for use, and 'Reuse an existing account' implies an alternative path. However, it never names the alternative tool or says when registration is appropriate versus when not to register.

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