Register

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load: it does disclose that registration is a one-time action and yields an api_key, which is real context beyond structured fields. It is silent on what happens on repeat invocation (new key vs. error), whether credentials are required to register, and whether existing state is overwritten — significant gaps for an account-mutating tool.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with the verb first and zero filler; nothing is wasted. It is lean to the point of under-specification, but the phrasing itself is 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?

An output schema exists so return formatting need not be explained, but with no annotations, 0% param coverage, and a required 'name' input left unexplained, the definition does not give the agent enough to invoke the tool correctly on the first try. It needs to cover the parameters and repeat-call behavior.

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 0% and the description mentions neither parameter, so the agent gets no information on what 'name' represents (client name? account identifier?) or what 'server' is for (target endpoint? default empty means what?). The only semantic hint is the output (api_key), which does not compensate for two fully undocumented inputs.

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 (注册 / register) and resource (客户端账号 / client account) and names the concrete outcome (获取 api_key), so the agent knows it is an account provisioning tool rather than a general auth call. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as update_profile or discover, but the purpose itself is 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?

'仅需一次' (only needed once) is a genuine usage hint that this is one-time setup, implying it should be called before other operations. However, it never states prerequisites, whether it must precede discover/submit_task, or what to do if a key already exists — the when-to-use signal is implied rather than explicit.

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