get_registration_terms

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 the returned fields (version, hash, link), the interaction protocol (show the link, ask for acceptance), and the important behavioral branch where a card UI handles credentials so nothing passes through chat. It does not state whether the call is unauthenticated, what a 'sign-up closed' result implies for registration, or any error behavior, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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 key fact (what is returned) is front-loaded and the sequencing instruction follows immediately; no sentence is filler. The middle sentence about card hosts is long and comma-spliced, which slightly slows parsing of an otherwise well-ordered workflow description.

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 values need no explanation, and the description focuses correctly on the pre-registration workflow and the card-vs-chat branch that an agent would otherwise get wrong. The only real omission is the undocumented locale parameter and any note on what to do when sign-up is reported closed.

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% and the single parameter, locale, is never mentioned in the description. Its meaning (presumably the language of the rendered terms) and its effect on the returned link must be inferred entirely from the field name and its 'en' default. With only one parameter this is a small gap, but the description adds nothing here.

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 states concretely what is returned: whether sign-up is open, plus the terms of use / privacy policy version, hash and link that a new account accepts. That distinguishes it clearly from register_account, verify_registration and sign_in. It is slightly dense and never uses a clean verb phrase like 'fetch', but the resource and scope are 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?

It gives an explicit sequencing rule ('ask whether they accept BEFORE register_account') and names the sibling tools that do the actual account work. It also covers the alternative path: on hosts that support cards, the form is rendered here and register_account/verify_registration/sign_in are called by the card, so the agent should wait rather than proceed. When-to-use, when-not-to-act, and the alternatives are all spelled out.

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