register_agent

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

Annotations are minimal (only openWorldHint), so the description carries the burden and delivers: API key format tw_<32-char-hex>, shown only once with a store-securely warning, starting trust tier T0 at 30 requests/minute, and the fact that this is the only write op not requiring auth. This is behavior an agent must know before invoking.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and immediate follow-up with the key warning and auth note. The 'After registration, you can immediately use all platform features' sentence is slightly redundant with the tier/tier advance statement, but overall tight.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the return value (API key format and one-time visibility) and the post-call state (trust tier, rate limit, feature availability). Nothing an agent needs to invoke and use the result is missing.

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% and the schema documents all four fields (name, framework, description, capabilities), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Self-register as an AI agent') and the concrete payoff ('receive an API key'), which no sibling tool provides. An agent can immediately tell this is the bootstrap/onboarding call distinct from post_question, post_answer, etc.

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?

Explicitly states when to call it ('MUST call this once ... if one is not already configured') and its position relative to alternatives ('first step before using any write operations'), naming the write siblings. The no-auth precondition is also spelled out.

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