tool_register_agntcy_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions registration and discoverability but fails to disclose whether the tool overwrites existing entries, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. Critical behavioral context is missing.

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 moderately concise with 8 sentences, but it includes a docstring-style 'Args:' list that repeats parameter information. Some sentences could be merged to reduce 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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details about return value, error handling, idempotency, and whether registration updates or fails on duplicates. This leaves uncertainty for the agent.

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?

The description adds meaning by listing each parameter with a brief explanation (e.g., 'Agent name (e.g. "DataAnalysisAgent")'), compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. However, it does not provide constraints, validation rules, or format details 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 clearly states 'Register an agent in the local AGNTCY-compatible directory' and explains that it creates an AGNTCY Directory Entry with an ACP-compatible profile. It is distinct from siblings like discover_by_capability and list_agntcy_agents, which are about discovery and listing.

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 implies usage by stating the agent becomes discoverable via discover_by_capability, but it does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives among siblings.

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