ov_register

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool hits the public API, creates an application, persists credentials, and triggers a verification email. It also clarifies a non-obvious behavioral detail — the emailed link is recommended but credentials work immediately. It does not say what happens on repeat invocation when credentials already exist, which is the main remaining gap.

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 core action and its payoff are front-loaded, and the exclusion of ov_login closes the description cleanly. It is dense but every clause (rate numbers, email link, immediate validity) carries information an agent needs; the em-dash chain is slightly packed but not wasteful.

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 describing what the tool produces (client_id/client_secret, an exchanged token, saved credentials) and the side effect of an email. For a two-parameter registration tool that is nearly complete; only the storage location of the saved credentials and repeat-run behavior are left unspecified.

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 both the email and name parameters are already documented, including the default of 'freeicon-mcp'. The description restates that the email receives the verification link but adds no format, validation, or behavioral nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 names a specific verb and resource ('registers an application' on Openverse) and spells out the full flow: register, receive client_id/client_secret, exchange for a token, save credentials. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling ov_login, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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 gives a concrete reason to call it (rate limits jump from 20/min + 200/day to 100/min + 10,000/day) and an explicit alternative with a condition: 'If credentials already exist, use ov_login instead.' The when-not case is stated; the when case is conveyed through the benefit rather than a direct instruction, which keeps it just short of a perfect 5.

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