Register Data Source

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false, covering the safety and mutability profile. The description adds one genuinely useful fact beyond the annotations: the call returns a signed SourceReceipt. It does not disclose auth requirements, what happens on duplicate registration, or the significance of the non-idempotent hint.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded followed by return-value fact. No waste, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 10-parameter governance tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it names the return artifact but explains none of the terms semantics, required hashes, or access-count limits. The mention of the SourceReceipt compensates partly for the missing output schema, but overall coverage of a complex registration contract is only minimum viable.

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 only 60%, so the schema does not fully carry the parameter burden. The description mentions no parameters at all and adds zero semantics beyond the schema, leaving the enum-bearing terms (compensationType, derivativePolicy, allowedPurposes) and their interaction unexplained.

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?

Names a specific verb (Register) and resource (a data source) plus the key qualifier 'with terms for agent access', so the agent knows this creates an access-controlled data registration. It does not differentiate itself from the many sibling creation tools (create_data_enforcement_gate, create_derivation_receipt, create_artifact_provenance), so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 phrase 'for agent access' hints at context but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. With dozens of sibling creation/registration tools, the agent gets no routing signal from this description.

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