Register onboarding email (optional)

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

Discloses deliberate outbound egress, no usage telemetry, no-op on empty/malformed, and safe to call again (idempotent). Annotations confirm idempotentHint and destructiveHint, with no contradiction. Description adds behavioral nuance beyond annotations.

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?

Description is fairly long but every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the core action and structured logically. Slight verbosity prevents a 5, but it remains efficient and clear.

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?

With low complexity and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: behavior, side effects, edge cases (no-op, safe re-call), and contrasts with siblings. It is fully complete for the tool's purpose.

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?

Single parameter 'email' has 100% schema coverage and description adds meaningful guidance: 'explicitly typed and submitted', 'omit/empty to skip'. This clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema definition.

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 identifies the tool's action: store an email from the tier-picker onboarding screen and POST it to a listener. It distinguishes from sibling tools by contrasting with notify_slack, which requires user-configured destination.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (explicit submit), when not to use (speculatively, on render, with unconfirmed/autofilled value), and provides alternative behavior (skip via empty string). Contrasts with notify_slack for context.

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