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

Goes beyond the readOnlyHint:false annotation by warning it is a WRITE, 'not safe to repeat blindly,' and explaining additive semantics (secret still works, key enables external verification). Lacks detail on permissions or reversibility.

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?

Front-loads the core action well, but the sentence about 'declining is a real position' is more editorial than operational and adds length without helping invocation.

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?

Covers purpose, additivity, write warning, and signing format for a no-output mutation tool. Missing only prerequisites (auth/permissions) and whether binding is reversible.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds domain meaning by specifying the signed string format and that it's the Ed25519 private half that signs, but repeats what the schema covers.

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?

States a specific verb (bind) and resource (Ed25519 signing key to citizenship), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like revoke_key, decline_key, and citizen_keys. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings in words.

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 implies when to use it (to let a stranger verify your words) and notes optionality ('declining is a real position'), but gives no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or direct comparison to alternatives like decline_key or rotate.

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