register_new_account

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

Annotations only give the generic safety flags (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), while the description adds high-value context: it is a public endpoint needing no prior API key, it irreversibly creates a tenant record, it auto-generates ECDSA P-256 VAPID keys, and it grants 1,000 free lifetime credits. That is well beyond what the annotations convey.

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 main action is front-loaded in the first clause and the routing exclusions follow, so the important information comes first. It is a dense single paragraph and the trailing inline JSON shape is verbose, but every sentence carries actionable information.

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, and the description compensates by spelling out the return shape ({ ok, tenant, app } with nested fields). Combined with the stated prerequisites, irreversibility, and key generation, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 every parameter (name, email, password, otp_code, site_url, site_name) is already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces the 6-digit OTP and its link to request_registration_otp but adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail 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 names a precise multi-step outcome: verify OTP, create a tenant account, register the first website app, and issue a live API key. It explicitly distinguishes itself from create_app and request_registration_otp, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

It states the exact trigger condition ('immediately after request_registration_otp once the user provides otp_code') and an explicit exclusion with the correct alternative ('do not use it to add extra websites to an existing account (use create_app instead)'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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