agentscoin_register_name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, giving a strong safety picture. The description adds the cost (1 AGENT) and naming rules, but does not explain irreversibility, permission needs, or rate limits. A 3 is appropriate: useful details, but not rich beyond annotations.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero waste. The action, cost, and name constraints are front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 3-param mutation tool with no output schema and annotation coverage, the description is complete enough to call correctly: name, target default, and cost are covered. However, the privateKey parameter and what happens after registration are left unaddressed, leaving gaps.

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 67%, so the schema already documents the name and target parameters fairly well. The description adds format constraints (lowercase a-z 0-9 and -, 3-32 chars), which partially compensates for the privateKey parameter being undocumented. Baseline 3 is correct given partial schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Register a .agent name'), names the economic cost (1 AGENT), and defines the naming constraints. It is distinguishable from siblings like agentscoin_resolve_name, which reads rather than registers.

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 when to use this tool (you want a .agent name), but does not state alternatives or prerequisites beyond cost. No explicit routing to or away from siblings such as resolve_name.

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