register_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a write operation (registration), has activation implications ('auto-activated on PRO tier'), returns a critical output ('API key'), and includes a permanent constraint ('API key cannot be retrieved later'). However, it lacks details on error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements, preventing a perfect score.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: the first states the action and context, the second covers activation and output, and the third adds a critical warning. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and zero-waste.

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 complexity (a write operation with 5 parameters and no output schema), the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, usage, key behavior, and output implications. However, without annotations or an output schema, it lacks details on response format (e.g., structure of the API key) and error handling, leaving minor gaps for the agent.

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 schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying registration context. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema handles the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding (e.g., by explaining relationships between fields).

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 specific action ('Register as an agent on Human Pages') and the resource ('agent'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_agent_profile' or 'verify_agent_domain'. It explicitly mentions the outcome ('Returns an API key') and the platform context ('Human Pages'), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for initial registration ('Register as an agent') and not for later retrieval ('The API key cannot be retrieved later'). It implies usage context by stating agents are 'auto-activated on PRO tier (free during launch)', helping differentiate from tools like 'get_activation_status' or 'claim_free_pro_upgrade'.

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