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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already cover safety traits. The description adds context by stating it creates a permanent identity, API key, earnings tracking, and USDC payouts, and reveals it's part of a two-step process. This exceeds annotation content without contradiction.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with a value hook ('Start earning') and actionable details. Every sentence earns its place: benefit, time, outcomes, and sequential usage. No fluff or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description covers the essential workflow: it's step 1 of 2 and names the follow-up tool. Combined with annotations, the agent knows what to do next. It doesn't describe the response format, but for a simple registration step with clear next steps, this is sufficient.

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%, so parameters are fully documented. The description does not add parameter-specific details, but the baseline of 3 applies when schema covers all parameters. It implicitly references wallet_address through registration context but adds no new meaning.

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 function: 'Start earning. Free registration, 30 seconds. Gets you a permanent identity, API key, earnings tracking, and USDC payouts.' It uses a specific verb (register) and resource (agent), and distinguishes from siblings like complete_registration by labeling it 'Step 1 of 2.'

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Step 1 of 2 — call this, then complete_registration with your signature.' This indicates when to call this tool and the next step. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling list and the step context make it clear.

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