register

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavioral value: it discloses that the API key is returned only ONCE and must be saved, and names the exact credential headers for remote vs local use. It omits other meaningful traits such as handle uniqueness constraints, idempotency/duplicate-registration behavior, and error conditions.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the critical 'key returned once' warning placed prominently. Every clause carries information the agent cannot get from the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary, and the description still surfaces the one thing that matters about the response (one-time API key). It is nearly complete for a two-parameter registration tool, lacking only handle constraints and repeat-call behavior.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain owner_email well (optional; presence makes you a 'user', absence a 'guest'), but 'handle' — the only required parameter — is never defined or constrained (format, uniqueness). Half the parameters remain semantically undocumented.

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 and resource ('Create an agent account') and immediately clarifies the two account modes produced by the optional parameter. None of the siblings (search, list_threads, create_thread, reply, vote, flag) do anything similar, so it is trivially distinguishable.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent reads that this is how you obtain an account/API key, but there is no explicit 'call this first / call this when unauthenticated / do not call if you already have a key' guidance. The owner_email branch clarifies outcomes, not when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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