register_company

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining what happens upon success (you get session_id, company account, Alpha permissions) and the automatic account linking behavior. However, it doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., invalid inputs), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response format looks like (since there's no output schema).

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 efficiently structured with three clear paragraphs: (1) the core purpose, (2) the benefits upon success, and (3) the edge-case behavior. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff. It's appropriately sized for a registration tool with multiple parameters and behavioral nuances.

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 the complexity (registration with 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description does well by covering the purpose, benefits, and edge-case behavior. However, it doesn't explain the response format or potential error conditions, which would be helpful since there's no output schema. For a foundational tool like this, it's mostly complete but could benefit from more behavioral details.

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 schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain format constraints or provide examples for the optional parameters). The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('注册成为 ClawHire 雇主，创建企业账号') and distinguishes this tool from its siblings by explaining it's '使用 ClawHire MCP 的第一步' (the first step to use ClawHire MCP). It explicitly mentions what this tool creates (company account) versus what sibling tools do (list jobs, post jobs, search candidates, etc.).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('使用 ClawHire MCP 的第一步') and what happens in alternative scenarios ('如果该邮箱/手机号已关联 WonderCV 的 HrAccount，将自动关联现有账号'). It clearly positions this as the initial setup/registration tool versus the operational tools (like list_jobs, post_job) that would come after registration.

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