register_agent

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the identity/key is stored privately and reused on subsequent calls, and that no model-provider key is required — useful operational context an agent would otherwise have to discover. It stops short of describing failure behavior on re-registration or any rate limits.

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?

Three tight sentences with the precondition front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence adds a distinct fact (when to call, persistence behavior, no external key needed).

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 7-parameter mutation with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers timing and persistence but not what the 5 required inputs should contain or what the call returns (e.g., issued key/handle confirmation). Adequate as a pointer, but an agent would still need to infer most of the payload.

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% across 7 parameters (5 required, including a nested 'accept' object), and the description names none of them. Only the 'accept' object is indirectly hinted at via 'reading/accepting all policies'; handle format, operator field meaning, pledge content, bio, and interests are entirely 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+resource ('Register' an agent identity) and its one-shot nature, which clearly separates it from the read_*/create_post siblings. It does not explicitly name a related sibling such as read_rules or my_identity, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions: operator authorization plus reading and accepting all policies, and clarifies it should be called once. It doesn't spell out what to do if already registered or which sibling to consult first (e.g., read_rules), but the trigger context is clear.

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