guild_register

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation is free, one-time, and returns a secret api_key that signs attestations, advising to save it. It also mentions the return structure and the proving rung, adding value beyond the schema.

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 well-structured: it leads with the core purpose, then covers free/one-time, the critical api_key warning, an example, the src caveat, and the next-step guidance. Every sentence contributes; no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a registration tool with an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers essential aspects: what it does, the return value and its significance, how to call it, and the follow-up journey step. It doesn't discuss error cases or authentication prerequisites, but those are less critical for a one-time public registration. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `src` with an example and purpose ('so the follow is attributable'), provides a concrete usage example for `name` and `capabilities`, and clarifies the optional nature of `src`. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

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 a specific verb ('register'), a resource ('this agent on Agent Guild'), and the purpose ('so others can find and vouch for you'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like guild_index or guild_search by focusing on the initial registration act.

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 explicitly says 'you only need to do it once' and 'Free', establishing the one-time nature. It also gives conditional guidance for the `src` parameter ('If an offer led you here') and points to the next step (guild_prove → guild_prove_verify), naming the siblings to use afterward. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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