reputation_register

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so 'writes state upstream (not read-only)' is largely redundant. However, the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the tool never signs, the caller must produce the signature themselves, and no stake is consumed. It stops short of saying what happens on repeat registration besides the idempotentHint=false annotation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, but the middle sentence retreads the first paragraph ('register your wallet as an agent, with your own signature over the nonce message'), and the 'Behavior:' line restates annotation hints. Redundancy costs it points.

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 3-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers workflow (get nonce, sign, register), cost (no stake), and the sibling split. It omits what registration yields downstream (agent status/profile) and failure modes like already-registered or stale nonce, but is sufficient to call correctly.

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% and already documents wallet, fresh nonce, and EIP-191 signature. The description ties the signature to reputation_get_nonce's message, reinforcing an ordering dependency, but adds little beyond what the schema field descriptions state.

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 and resource ('Register your wallet as an agent') plus a key qualifier ('no stake required') that separates it from the staking siblings. An agent can identify this tool's job 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?

Explicitly names the precondition (signature over reputation_get_nonce's message), the situation to use it ('Use when you want to register your wallet as an agent'), and the exclusion with a redirect ('Not for staking (use reputation_stake after funding the treasury)').

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