register_data_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only says it registers a data source and returns a signed SourceReceipt, but does not state whether the registration is persistent, requires authorization, is irreversible, or what the receipt entails. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a governance-related mutation 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?

The description is two crisp sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler. Every word adds value, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, no annotations), the one-sentence description is inadequate. It omits usage context, preconditions, the meaning of the signed receipt, and relationship to the many sibling tools. This oversight could lead an agent to invoke the tool in the wrong scenario.

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?

The schema coverage is 60%, so some parameters have descriptions, but the description itself adds no parameter-level detail. It only generically refers to 'terms for agent access' without mapping to specific fields like allowedPurposes, derivativePolicy, or compensationType, and thus fails to help an agent understand the required inputs beyond what the schema already shows.

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 a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('data source'), and adds scope with 'terms for agent access'. It also mentions the return value ('signed SourceReceipt'), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on receipts, governance blocks, or access checks.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not reference any sibling tools, mention preconditions (e.g., data hashing or term negotiation), or explain under what circumstances registration is appropriate.

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