beacon_register

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explains the outcome (get agent_id and relay_token) and a requirement (no beacon-skill package), but omits details on idempotency, persistence, permissions, or error conditions.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or filler text.

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?

Despite not detailing output schema or error cases, the description covers the core value proposition and a key constraint. For a registration tool with 6 well-documented parameters and an output schema, this is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100% and all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Register' and the resource 'relay agent on the Beacon network'. It explicitly says this is how an AI agent joins the network, differentiating it from sibling tools like beacon_chat or beacon_send_message.

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 implies this is a first step by noting 'This is how any AI agent joins the Beacon network', but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or what preconditions or exclusion criteria exist.

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