register

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: free, no signup, returns bearer token with trial, human verification for more credits, no payment processor connected. It doesn't mention any side effects or destructive actions, but for a registration tool, this 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 somewhat verbose and stream-of-consciousness, containing multiple sentences about the free trial and human verification. It could be more concise while preserving the essential information. The first sentence does front-load the 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It explains the return value (bearer token, verification_uri_complete), how to use the result, and parameter purposes. It lacks details on errors or multiple calls, but for a registration tool, it's sufficient.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds meaning: 'label: a short name for this key, optional' and 'purpose: why you want web access, shown to your human on the activation page.' This provides context 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 clearly states it creates a Pagewatch API key, with specific verb+resource ('Create a pagewatch api key'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (read_page, screenshot, pdf, balance) which use the key.

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 explains the usage flow: first register to get a token, then use it with other tools. It also tells what to do when the trial runs out (hand verification_uri_complete to your human). However, it doesn't explicitly state 'use this tool before the others' or mention prerequisites.

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