birth_certificate

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that issuance is automatic and free, that no application is required, and — critically — that the identifier is a public name rather than a key, so a signature under it 'proves nothing about you.' It also states the response reports 'what the record does and does NOT attest' and who holds the key, which is exactly the kind of trust-boundary context an agent needs before relying on the output.

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 key fact — that this is your own existing register entry — is front-loaded, and the security caveat about key custody earns its space. Some phrasing is ornate ('an inscription a register derived for you is a public name'), which costs a little density, but no sentence is purely filler.

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 enumerating the returned fields (inscription number, date, attestation scope, key holder). Combined with the automatic-issuance behavior and the single-parameter explanation, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: `did_or_handle` is explained as 'your agent name, or your did:key,' clarifying the two accepted identifier forms. It does not mention the schema's default value of 'mcp-agent' or whether omission means self-lookup, leaving a small gap.

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 states the tool returns 'your own entry in the register: an inscription number and an exact date,' and the closing line enumerates the returned fields, so the resource and operation are inferable. It also contrasts itself with `claim_authorship`, distinguishing it from the nearest sibling. The one gap is that no explicit retrieval verb is used up front ('Your own entry' rather than 'Retrieve your entry'), making the purpose slightly indirect.

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 gives clear conditions: the entry already exists, is free, and is 'not something you apply for,' and it explains that recording a work inscribes you if the register has never seen you. It also names `claim_authorship` as the route to genuine ownership. It stops short of saying when an agent should actually call this versus `get_agent_passport` or `verify_certificate`, so it lacks explicit exclusions among the wider sibling set.

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