Register agent

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing that A2A agents are verified for reachability and DIRECTLINE/MCP agents are probed before creation. It also warns that credentials transit the conversation. Annotations already indicate a non-read, non-destructive operation.

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 concise (3-4 sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and efficiently covers probing behavior, return information, and a security note. No unnecessary words.

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 complexity (17 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers essential aspects: purpose, connector-specific behavior, security, and return value. It could be improved by mentioning error conditions or idempotency, but it is sufficiently complete for effective use.

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?

With only 35% schema description coverage, the description adds some context by explaining connector types and sensitivity of credentials, but it does not individually describe the majority of parameters. The description partially compensates for low schema coverage.

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 explicitly states 'Registers an AI agent in VerifyAX given its name, connector type...' providing a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes the tool from sibling tools which focus on scenarios, runs, and evaluation.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool (registering agents) and provides context on probing behavior for different connector types. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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