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

The description discloses two behavioral traits: '1 signed call' and 'idempotent'. With no annotations, this adds useful context about authentication and repeatability. However, it does not explain what the call returns, side effects, error conditions, or whether the idempotency ensures no duplicate agents.

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 extremely brief, with no wasted words ('Register an agent (1 signed call, idempotent)'). While this is concise, it is under-specified to the point of being almost terse, and the parenthetical feels informative but incomplete.

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 that there is no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters (two required, one nested), the description is insufficient. It omits return values, expected input format, and the overall registration workflow, leaving the agent to infer too much.

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%, and the description makes no mention of the parameters (public_key_multibase, proof, metadata). It fails to explain their meaning or relationships, leaving the agent with only the bare schema types. This is a significant gap because the description should compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 action: 'Register an agent', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like declare_principal and resolve, though not explicitly, by focusing on registration rather than declaration or resolution. The added parenthetical '1 signed call, idempotent' gives a hint of behavior but not full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions under which one might choose register over declare_principal or declare_receipt. The description only states what it does, not when to invoke it.

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