register_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses that the tool creates a user, returns an OAuth URL, requires the end user to open the URL in a browser, and that the URL is valid for 24 hours. It also notes the default language. This is robust transparency for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise, with the core action front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and then essential behavioral details (browser requirement and validity). Every sentence adds value, and the structure is logical. It is slightly verbose in the OAuth explanation but still efficient.

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 an output schema exists (so return format is presumably covered) and no annotations, the description provides a comprehensive picture: what it does, when to use it, parameter defaults, and the critical OAuth flow requirement. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without needing additional context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It states that email and language are optional and that the default language is 'fr'. While it doesn't elaborate on the purpose of the email parameter, the description covers both parameters sufficiently to guide invocation, which is adequate for only two optional parameters.

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 ('Crée un nouvel utilisateur') and resource ('nouvel utilisateur Plus Tard'), and clearly distinguishes the action from siblings like get_user and list_accounts. The return of an OAuth URL is also explicit, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's primary function.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Utilise ce tool quand l'utilisateur veut onboarder un nouveau client ou se créer un compte.' This is clear guidance, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The condition is specific enough for an agent to route correctly.

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