Registry entry for getting listed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. Beyond the annotations it adds genuine behavior: no pull request is opened, the local data dir identity pubkey is used by default, and a shopper entry must carry the shopper node's key. It stops short of describing validation or failure behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence delivers purpose, then a compact per-role field enumeration, then the pubkey default and the 'opens no pull request' caveat. It is dense and the inline JSON shapes are hard to scan, but nearly every clause carries non-redundant information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what comes back, and it does: the exact file and path to commit. Combined with the per-role shapes, the local-only boundary and the pubkey rule, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only error/validation behavior is unstated.

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, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: which fields each role's file must contain (e.g. shopper requires escrows and payments, escrow requires sla_days, operators use regions) and the pubkey default rule. That per-role requirement mapping is the main value beyond the flat property list.

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 deliverable: return 'the exact JSON file and path to add in a pull request' to a named registry repo. It also frames the outcome (the entity gets listed once the maintainer merges), which no sibling tool does, so an agent can distinguish it from become_shopper or report without opening the schema.

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?

Usage context is clear — use this when a shopper, escrow, operator or coordinator needs to be added to the registry — and it explicitly bounds the action with 'Local; opens no pull request itself.' It does not, however, name an alternative (e.g. become_shopper) or state when not to use it, which matches the rubric's 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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