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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, it declares 'WRITES: this call changes stored state and is not safe to repeat blindly,' flagging non-idempotence. It also scopes the authorization boundary ('authorizes NO payment and creates NO entitlement', 'a binding is still not a debt') and notes the proof is revocable, all of which the annotation does not convey.

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-loaded with purpose and benefit in the first sentence, followed by mechanics and then caveats. It is dense rather than padded, though the repeated emphasis on authorization limits ('NO payment', 'NO entitlement', 'not a debt') is slightly redundant.

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 complex, 8-required-param mutation with no output schema, it covers the signing procedure, the cross-referenced signing_bytes step, and post-success behavior well. It does not describe failure modes or what the response returns, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 only 20% across 10 params, so the description carries extra burden. It usefully clarifies the dual-signature model (EIP-191 wallet `signature` plus Ed25519 `citizen_signature` with the bound citizen key) and pins the exact bytes/version, but several parameters (handle, secret, address, chain_id, preimage, citizen_public_key) remain unexplained.

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 ('prove'), resource ('a Base address'), and scope ('ONCE ... so the wallet signature stops repeating for every listing'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling payout_binding by describing how the two interact, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear context for when to call (once, to avoid repeating the wallet signature per listing) and names the downstream effect on payout_binding calls (may omit `signature`). It does not spell out explicit when-not conditions or point at payout_wallet_revoke as the undo path, so it stops short of a full routing guide.

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