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

Annotations already indicate that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive operation. The description adds the prerequisite of a signed wallet message and the need to call register_agent first, but does not disclose potential side effects such as fees (referenced only via payment_signature parameter) or what happens on success. It provides some context beyond annotations but not rich behavioral detail.

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 just two short sentences, with the primary action in the first sentence and the prerequisite in the second. It is front-loaded, concise, and every word contributes to clarity.

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?

Despite having 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential context for the registration flow, including the prerequisite and what to supply. The schema covers parameter details, so the description is adequately complete for this straightforward tool, though it could mention possible fee implications or post-registration behavior.

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% for all 8 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-related context, mainly reinforcing that the nonce, timestamp, and signature come from register_agent, which is already documented in the schema. It does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 action ('Complete agent registration') and identifies the specific resource (agent registration). It also differentiates from the sibling register_agent by explicitly naming it as the prerequisite step, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly instructs users to 'Call register_agent first to get the message to sign,' providing clear sequencing and indicating that this tool is the second step in a registration flow. This is direct guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling.

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