Register an advertiser (ORD)

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

The description discloses that a wrong advertiser cannot be edited or deleted, only superseded, which adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation. It also specifies the return value (id and apiPointBalance) and clarifies that apiPointBalance indicates remaining weekly API points, providing operational context.

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 4 sentences, front-loaded with the main action and return value, followed by constraints and a useful warning. No redundant information or fluff; every sentence adds value.

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 the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value, legal requirements, irreversibility, and the relationship to campaigns/contracts. It also mentions checking existing records, which is crucial for a tool with no update/delete capability.

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%, with each parameter already documented (e.g., inn length, kpp ul-only, legalRole enum). The description reinforces these rules (legal details must match state register, kpp applies to ul only) but does not add new parameter meanings beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Registers' and clearly identifies the resource as 'advertiser (an ORD counterparty)' under the account. It also distinguishes from siblings like list_advertisers (read) and create_contract (different resource) by stating it creates the entity that campaigns/contracts reference.

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 tells the agent to 'check list_advertisers for an existing record first' and warns that there is no edit/delete endpoint, which sets the appropriate pre-conditions. This gives clear guidance on when to use the tool and what to verify before invoking it.

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