register_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It meets that burden by stating concrete side effects: immediate credit issuance ($5), no payment instrument needed, no human review, and immediate usability across specific categories (dataset queries, GPU inference, DAG manifold, DePIN/API access). It does not disclose behavior on duplicate registration (idempotency), which keeps it short of 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?

The critical information is front-loaded: the opening sentence tells the agent what to do and what it gets. The remaining sentences are compact and each adds behavioral context (no card, immediate credit usability, next call). It is a single readable block with no wasted filler, although phrases like 'No credit card, no human, no Stripe required' are slightly redundant with one another.

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 registration call with 2 plain string parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description tells the agent everything needed to call it correctly: the purpose, the result (key + credits), the effect (immediate credit availability), and the follow-up step. The only unstated detail is the concrete shape of the returned API key or proof of registration, which is a minor gap for this low-complexity onboarding path.

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%, so the baseline is 3; both parameters are already self-explanatory in the schema (contact email for delivery/top-up notifications; agent name). The prose adds no format caveats, uniqueness constraints, or delivery details beyond what the schema already states. It does not introduce any additional semantics.

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?

Opens with the imperative 'START HERE' and a clear action-resource-outcome statement: 'Self-register as an AI agent to get $5 free credits and an API key.' It is semantically distinct from all siblings (list_products, purchase_data, topup_credits, check_balance, dataset and verification tools), so an agent can confidently classify it as the onboarding step without opening the 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?

Provides an explicit sequence of use: 'Call this first, then call list_products to see what you can buy.' It communicates that registration precedes all other actions and names the immediate next step. However, it does not address the re-run case (e.g., if the agent is already registered, use check_balance/topup_credits instead), so it lacks a when-not exclusion.

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