register_agent

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the signature-based auth flow and that the successful call yields an api_key, which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not address idempotency or what happens on re-registration.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information, front-loaded with the optionality caveat. Efficient and well-ordered, with only mild density in the final procedural sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the return value (api_key) and the intermediate message. The auth sequence is fully covered; the only gap is the undocumented secondary parameters.

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 60%, so the schema documents some parameters but not all. The description adds real meaning for `signature` (base58 ed25519 signature of the message) and implies `solana_pubkey`, but leaves `agent_id`, `referred_by`, and `capabilities` entirely unexplained in both places.

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 tool performs an optional registration and names the concrete benefit (referral credits and receipt history). It is readily distinguishable from the payment-centric siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself against them.

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?

It states the key when/when-not up front ('Optional registration; paying and getting paid work without it') and then gives an explicit two-call procedure: first without `signature` to obtain the message, then with the base58 signature to get the api_key. Nothing about invocation order is left to inference.

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