register_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does well: it explains the relative priority semantics (higher priority pulls from equal-or-lower, never the reverse) and explicitly discloses that re-registering resets the contract and ledger entry — a destructive repeat-call consequence. No contradiction with annotations since none exist.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence. The priority semantics and reset behavior earn their place and there is no fluff. Slightly dense but well structured for the information conveyed.

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 registration tool with no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite relationship to siblings, the priority flow rules, and the reset-on-reregister consequence — everything an agent needs to call it correctly. Minor gap: no mention of expected return value or success indication, but acceptable without an output schema.

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 mentions 'priority weight' and 'initial token budget', mapping to priority and max_tokens, but adds nothing beyond what the schema already documents for each parameter. The schema itself carries the parameter detail.

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 opening sentence 'Register a new agent in the budget system with a priority weight and an initial token budget' uses a specific verb (register) with a specific resource (agent in budget system) and the key fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings by framing registration as a prerequisite to record_spend and request_reallocation, so an agent can tell it apart from the other four tools.

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 gives explicit sequencing guidance: 'Call this once per agent before recording spend or requesting reallocation for it.' This tells the agent when to use the tool relative to its siblings. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., to inspect budget one should use get_budget_snapshot), but the prerequisite framing provides clear enough context.

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