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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive creation. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: 'Shown once', warning the caller that the token value is returned only at creation and must be captured. It omits expiry, scope, and whether multiple tokens may coexist.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action first and the important 'Shown once' caveat second; nothing is wasted. The final fragment is terse to the point of being slightly under-explained, which is the only cost.

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 3-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and one critical behavior but leaves out token lifetime, permissions required, and what the returned object contains. Enough to call it, not enough to call it confidently.

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?

orgId and domainId are documented in the schema with sourcing hints (org_list / domain_list), while label is undocumented in both places at 67% coverage. The description itself adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 for schema-led documentation applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates a token') plus the effect ('lets an agent register its own address on this domain'), which distinguishes it from regtoken_list and regtoken_revoke. It never names the consuming tool register_agent explicitly, so routing is inferable rather than stated.

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 purpose sentence implies when to use it (before an agent registers on a domain), but there is no explicit when/when-not or named alternative such as regtoken_list for inspecting existing tokens. Usage is left to inference from the intent statement.

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