aqb_register

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one real trait — the caller must be the account itself, an authorization constraint — but says nothing about side effects, idempotency on re-registration, reversibility, cost, or what the operation produces.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though it leans toward under-specification.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter undocumented in either schema or description, this is too thin. An agent cannot tell what registration changes, what the card payload must contain, or what a success response looks like.

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 description coverage is 0% across three parameters, including a nested object 'card' and an enum 'scheme'. The description clarifies only that 'account' refers to the caller/account being registered; it adds no meaning for 'card' or the ecdsa/pq scheme choice, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: registering a PQSmartAccount as an agent. It is meaningfully distinct from siblings like aqb_is_agent (a check) and aqb_update_card (a modification), though the term 'PQSmartAccount' is unexplained jargon an agent must already know.

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 parenthetical 'caller must be the account' conveys a useful precondition for calling, but there is no guidance on when to register versus checking status first (aqb_is_agent) or what to do if registration already occurred.

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