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

The description explains the instantaneous nature of registration, the GLEIF API verification call, and that no documents or manual review are involved. It also describes tier-specific caps and legal basis, adding meaningful context beyond the sparse annotations. No annotation contradiction exists (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) and the description aligns with these hints.

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 dense and information-rich, starting with the core concept and moving through tiers and legal reasoning. Every sentence adds value, but the single paragraph format could be improved with more structure (e.g., bullets or headings) for quicker scanning. It is appropriately sized given the complexity.

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?

The tool is complex with three tiers, a nested mandate object, and regulatory implications. The description covers all essential decision points: tier selection criteria, daily caps, verification process, and legal acceptance. It also leverages the schema for parameter details and the output schema for return values, making the description complete for correct invocation.

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?

Although the input schema already covers all parameters with descriptions, the description adds crucial tier mapping: it explains how the presence or absence of ownerEntity, ownerEmail, and ownerLei determines the tier and associated caps. It also clarifies that the mandate is only for REGISTERED/VERIFIED and that caps are clamped to tier limits, which is not fully captured in the schema descriptions.

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 as the agent registration entry point under the KYA model, with a specific action (register) and resource (agent). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like agent.kya_verify by detailing the three tiers and their requirements, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit guidance on which parameters to use for each registration tier (name alone for ANONYMOUS, + ownerEntity/ownerEmail for REGISTERED, + ownerLei for VERIFIED), effectively telling the agent how to select tier options. It does not, however, name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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