register_agent

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the two-step challenge-response flow, that signing occurs off-server, and includes a critical security warning about secret handling—going well beyond the minimal schema.

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 description is front-loaded with its purpose and is largely concise, but the final sentence partially restates the 'own wallet tooling' point from the second sentence, creating minor redundancy that prevents a perfect score.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains the return value (challenge string), the required next step (verify_registration), and security boundaries, fully covering the tool's context given its simple one-parameter design.

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?

The schema already fully describes the address parameter (100% coverage). The description adds that the address's key is used for signing, reinforcing its purpose and binding semantics, though this is only marginally adds to the schema's 'bind the key to' phrasing.

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 clearly states this is the first step of self-service HOGSWAP API key registration ('step 1 of 2', 'Returns a challenge string'), distinguishing it from the sibling verify_registration and making the tool's exact function 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 provides explicit workflow guidance: sign the challenge 'IN YOUR OWN wallet tooling' then 'call verify_registration', and explicitly warns against passing mnemonics/private keys, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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