register_account

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses that registration triggers a verification email, requires user action, and suggests polling. It also notes the existing-account condition. It could mention error responses or idempotency, but the workflow is well covered.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, post-registration requirement, and alternative paths. No filler or redundancy; information is front-loaded.

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 simple 2-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the registration flow, verification step, and conditional skip. It lacks explicit error messages or return values, but is complete enough for an agent to act 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?

Schema has 100% coverage for both parameters with descriptions (email format, password min length). Description only restates 'email and password' without adding extra meaning beyond what schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Register' with the resource 'new XNS account' and explicitly mentions email/password. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by directing to check_email_verified for polling and install_relayer for existing accounts.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool (to register), what to do after (verify email, poll with check_email_verified), and when to skip (if email already has an account, go to install_relayer). This provides clear context and alternatives.

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