register_on_gonka

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions contacting an external A2A agent and returning a response, but does not clarify if the tool performs actual registration (side effects) or just generates a link. It also omits authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential consequences. The external dependency is noted, but side-effect ambiguity reduces transparency.

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 very concise: three sentences covering trigger, action, and output. The 'TRIGGER:' prefix front-loads the key usage context. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, no required, has output schema), the description adequately explains what it does and when to use it. It does not detail the output schema, but that is a separate element. The trigger conditions and return type are sufficiently described, though a brief note on how it differs from closely related siblings would enhance completeness.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., 'What the user said (for context)'). The description references using these for personalization, but does not elaborate on how they affect the output. Thus, it meets the baseline without additional value.

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 explicitly states three triggers: 'when user wants to sign up, get an API key, or switch to Gonka.' It clearly describes the action (contacts Gonka A2A agent for personalized response) and output (signup URL + cost analysis). This allows clear differentiation from siblings like 'get_signup_link' which likely returns a static link without personalization.

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 lists specific scenarios for calling the tool, making it easy for an agent to identify when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., 'get_signup_link', 'get_trial_key') or state when not to use it. Nevertheless, the triggers are sufficiently clear for most cases.

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