minia2a_register

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining side effects: wallet generation, private key return, platform non-custody, and per-wallet trial limits. It does not describe every possible failure mode, but it reveals the key behaviors an agent should know before invoking it.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence gives the core purpose and reward; the second explains the optional-input behavior and security implications; the last clarifies the trial scope. Every sentence contributes, with no filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behaviors well: registration, trial calls, wallet generation, private key return, and custody. The only notable gap is that the return value for the supplied-wallet path is not specified, but the provided information is sufficient for correct invocation in the common cases.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining the EIP-191 signature content, the dependency between wallet and signature, and the fallback behavior when wallet/signature are omitted. This is genuinely useful beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: register for minia2a.uk using a self-custody wallet and EIP-191 signature, with a concrete outcome of 5 free trial calls. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like minia2a_credits or minia2a_call_service, which serve different purposes.

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 clearly explains the two usage modes: provide an existing wallet+signature, or omit them and have the tool generate a fresh wallet. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the conditional guidance is strong and actionable.

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