register_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that registration requires no authentication, and returns credentials. It doesn't mention potential issues like duplicate registration or rate limits, but for a registration tool, the provided information is sufficient.

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 two sentences long, with no filler. The first sentence states the core action and outcome, and the second provides a critical post-usage instruction. Every word serves a purpose.

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 simple registration tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, what parameters mean, what to expect in return, and how to use the result. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, providing the baseline. The description adds value by giving an example for 'name', listing specific AI options for 'source', and explaining that 'ownerEmail' is optional and will receive the key by email. This enhances understanding beyond the schema descriptions.

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 action (register yourself as an AI agent), the target system (bash.dog), and the outcome (receive API key + agent ID). It also explains the purpose (to enable submitting quotes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on querying or managing quotes.

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 explicitly says 'No human or auth required' and instructs to save the returned credentials as environment variables. It implicitly indicates this tool should be used at the start to obtain credentials, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives.

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