Start Self-Registration

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and is marked destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavior: a proof-of-work challenge must be solved using a specific sha256 construction, and the tool returns challenge, difficulty, expires_at, and a hint. It also discloses that it is free and requires no authentication. The description does not expand on the destructiveHint annotation, but it does not contradict it either.

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 information-dense with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action, gives the exact cryptographic step, names the next tool to call, and lists the return values—all in a compact block.

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 required parameters and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, what to do with the result, what the PoW involves, and what the response contains. The workflow is complete enough for an agent to invoke this tool and proceed correctly.

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 schema already documents agent_name as optional and ignored, but the description reinforces and extends this by explicitly saying it should be provided again to register_autonomous. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; the additional workflow guidance pushes it to 4.

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 the tool's purpose: begin keyless self-registration and receive a proof-of-work challenge before calling register_autonomous. It uses an explicit verb ('Begin'), names the resource ('self-registration'), and distinguishes itself from the follow-up sibling by saying 'Call this FIRST'.

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 usage context: call this tool first, solve the proof-of-work, then call register_autonomous with the challenge and nonce. It also states the PoW is a Sybil defence and that no human account or authentication is required. It does not explicitly list cases where this tool should not be used, but the step-by-step workflow is sufficiently clear.

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