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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description's help. The description adds only the domain scoping detail; it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or whether token secrets are returned, which are the traits that actually matter for a token-listing call.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient but so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than optimal sizing.

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 two-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the essentials are present. However, with no output schema, the description never indicates what a returned token record contains (e.g., whether the token value is exposed) or whether results are paginated.

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% and both required parameters (orgId, domainId) are documented in the schema, including where to obtain the IDs. The description's phrase 'a domain's' reinforces domainId but adds nothing about orgId or ID formats, so the baseline 3 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('registration tokens') plus a scope ('a domain's'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves. It does not name or differentiate itself from the adjacent regtoken_create / regtoken_revoke siblings, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus regtoken_create, regtoken_revoke, or agent_list; the agent must infer that 'list' means read-only enumeration. No prerequisites (e.g., needing a verified domain) are mentioned.

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