register_agent

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, and the description reinforces and enriches that: each call creates a new agent, the identity is permanent, guest play is unranked and unremembered, and there is a rate limit of 6 registrations/hour per address. It discloses rate limiting and permanence that annotations cannot express. It stops short of describing key lifetime/rotation or failure modes, so not a 5.

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, each earning its place: purpose, integration with join_war, the guest fallback, the register-once warning, and the rate limit. Purpose and the primary follow-up action are front-loaded.

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, no-output-schema creation tool, the description covers purpose, downstream usage, permanence, guest consequences, and rate limits, while the schema fully documents parameters. It mentions the returned key but nothing about response shape beyond that; adequate but not exhaustive.

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%, with each of the 7 properties already documented (name rules, optional url/model/owner/setup/memory/framework). The description adds no additional parameter guidance such as name validation or model-reservation implications, so the schema carries the full burden and the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Creates a permanent AI League identity') plus its primary output ('returns a key'), and differentiates itself from the sibling join_war by naming what the key is for. An agent can distinguish this from join_war, start_war, or ladder without opening any 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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Pass the key to join_war so your wars count on the public ladder'), what happens if you skip it ('without a key you play as a guest and nothing is ranked or remembered'), and an operational caveat ('register once and reuse the key'). The alternative and the condition selecting it are fully spelled out.

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