register

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

Annotations already flag destructive/open-world, and the description meaningfully adds beyond them: the operation is irreversible once registered, and a separate x402 payment step is required. It doesn't cover what happens on partial failure or how the registrant data is validated, but the risk profile is clearly communicated.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, front-loading what is bought before the irreversible and payment warnings. Every clause carries operational weight.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description could say more about what a successful registration returns (order id, status). For a 5-param irreversible mutation with a nested registrant object and a terms-acceptance contract, the description covers the essentials but leaves key parameters and the post-call state underspecified.

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% across 5 required params including a 13-field nested registrant object. The description only gestures at the registrant and implies quote_id; accept_terms, terms_version, and client_order_id (which has a 16-80 char constraint suggesting idempotency) are entirely 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?

States a specific verb and resource – buying/registering the exact domain from an existing quote – tied to the supplied registrant. It reads clearly as the purchase step, distinguishable from the sibling `quote` (pricing) and `renew` (extension), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the tool requires an 'unexpired quote' and mentions a separate x402 payment, which tells the agent roughly when this applies. There is no explicit when-not guidance or routing to `quote`/`renew` as alternatives, leaving the precondition chain to inference.

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