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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the call does not touch funds, which is a key behavioral trait. It also explains the registration lifecycle (before wallet/mandate), which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects like creating database records, or any authorization requirements, but given the scope, this is adequate.

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 concise but packed with information. It front-loads the core purpose and then explains the two modes clearly. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., with bullet points) but is efficient in using words to convey critical distinctions.

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 output schema and partial parameter documentation, the description covers the essential context: what this tool does, its two usage modes, and its safety profile (no funds touched). It doesn't explain the response format or further steps, but for a registration call, this is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 50% (label and agentId are described in schema, but userId and portal are not). The description adds value by explaining how agentId and label are used in different modes (e.g., byo-external with label for Mode A, defi-* for Mode B). It also clarifies that portal is required but doesn't explain its options, which is a minor gap.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: registering an agent instance under a userId before it has a wallet or mandate. It distinguishes two modes (A and B) with specific agentId values and labels, which is very specific and helps an agent understand exactly what this tool does and how it differs from others like ava_create_mandate or ava_provision_wallet.

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 implies when to use this tool (before wallet/mandate creation) and contrasts with alternatives by mentioning that this call alone never touches funds, suggesting it is not for financial actions. It could be more explicit about when NOT to use it (e.g., if wallet needs provisioning) but the context is clear enough.

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