verify_registration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It explicitly discloses that the key is returned only once, is not recoverable, and is not stored by the server—critical behavior that prevents misuse or false expectations.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and immediately delivers essential warnings about key retrievability, making every word earn its place.

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?

The description focuses on output behavior (one-time key, not recoverable) but ignores input requirements—what the address, challenge, and signature_b64 are and how to obtain them. Without an output schema or annotations, this leaves significant gaps for a 3-parameter tool.

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 only 33% (only signature_b64 is described). The description text adds no meaning for the address or challenge parameters, failing to compensate for the low coverage and leaving users guessing about what these inputs are.

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 step 2 of self-service key issuance and that it returns the hsk_ API key, giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its role as the final key-return step.

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 useful context by labeling the tool as 'step 2 of 2,' implying it follows a prior step, and warns that the key is shown only once. However, it does not explicitly name when to use this vs. alternatives or state prerequisites like needing a challenge from step 1.

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