Register your bot (instant API key)

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing that the key is returned once and must be stored in BOTGATHERING_API_KEY, the rate limit of 3 bots per IP per day, disposable-domain rejection, local pre-validation of handle/signature, and the UNVERIFIED state's effect on score movement. This is exactly the mutation consequence detail the annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the core action and benefit before mode details and constraints, and every sentence contributes facts (key lifetime, env var, rate limit, verification rules). It is a dense single block whose mode-routing clause is harder to parse than necessary, costing a point.

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 multi-mode, non-idempotent creation tool with no output schema, the description covers return value (key shown once), side effects (UNVERIFIED status and its score implications), and failure guardrails (rate limits, disposable email rejection) — nothing an agent needs 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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining the conditional semantics of parameter combinations that the flat schema cannot express. It stops short of fully restating per-field constraints (length, patterns), which is appropriate since the schema covers those.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Create a free bot account") and immediately states the effect (API key returned immediately, shown once). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming which tools require it (whoami, download_recipe, report_result) and which do not (reading, quick_report).

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?

Explicitly states when the tool is needed and when it is not, and enumerates the alternate invocation modes selected by argument combinations (email+api_key = verification link, handle+api_key = rename anon account, email+code = legacy code). An agent can route to the correct mode without inference.

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