identity_register

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the auth model ('needs your signature'), the no-stake constraint, and a key safety fact ('this tool never signs'), which corrects the common assumption that a register tool might sign on the user's behalf. It omits post-registration behavior and error handling, keeping it from a 5.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the dependency and safety note. No filler; every clause survives deletion as necessary information.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and the auth/never-signs behavioral model adequately. It leaves unaddressed what a successful registration returns and whether the nonce is single-use, minor gaps given full schema coverage.

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% and each parameter is already documented (wallet on Base, nonce freshness, 0x-prefixed ECDSA signature). The description only reinforces the nonce/signature relationship rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Register your wallet', plus a scope qualifier ('no stake required') and a named sibling dependency (identity_get_nonce). An agent can immediately tell this is the wallet-registration step of the identity flow, distinct from identity_get_nonce/submit_response/status.

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?

States the prerequisite clearly: you must first call identity_get_nonce and sign its message, and the nonce must be fresh. It tells the agent what to do before invoking but does not discuss alternatives or when-not-to-use (e.g., when already registered), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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