sap_sns_register_agent_domain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the registration transaction includes USDC payment plus SOL fees, and that the SOL record is not set. However, it does not describe what happens if the domain already exists, potential error states, or idempotency. For a registration tool, the primary side effect (creation) is implied, but more details would improve transparency.

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 three sentences: purpose and action, payment details, and a critical caveat with an alternative. No extraneous words; efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given 10 parameters (including nested objects) and no output schema, the description covers the high-level flow, payment method, and a key constraint. It lacks details about the return value (e.g., transaction signature) and parameter dependencies, but provides sufficient context for an agent to decide to call this 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what is in the schema. It mentions USDC payment and SOL record but lacks parameter-level enhancement.

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 the tool registers a .sol domain for the configured local SAP agent wallet, using the SAP SDK SnsModule. It specifies that it builds, signs, and submits the full registration transaction with USDC payment in one call. Among sibling tools like sap_sns_check_domain, this tool's exclusive registration purpose is evident.

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?

The description explicitly mentions that the SOL record is not set during registration and directs the agent to use the sibling sap_sns_build_manage_record_transaction for that step. It implies the agent wallet must be configured and USDC payment is required, but does not explicitly list when to use or not use this tool versus checking availability.

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