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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It does this well by detailing what happens for each backend (e.g., secret_ref seals a scoped key, wallet returns unsigned tx, smart_account uses session key) and the Solana auto-approve flow. It also notes the auth requirement and that keys never travel to the agent. However, it doesn't explicitly state that a persistent connection is created or how to reverse it (though signet_revoke exists as a sibling), so it's not fully transparent about the long-term effect.

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 long but information-dense, with the core purpose front-loaded ('Signet is Rokha's capability layer... lets you act ON-CHAIN with value') and the step-by-step flow clearly laid out. Every sentence adds value—no filler. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for backends), but the prose is efficient given the complexity of the tool.

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 the tool's complexity (5 params, no output schema, part of a multi-step flow), the description covers the essential context: what it does, how it fits into the sequence, backend options, chain behavior, and auth. It doesn't describe the return value or error cases, but those are less critical for an agent deciding whether to call it. The description is complete enough for correct invocation, though a note on expected response would push it to 5.

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 80%, and the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. It explains the backend enum values in depth (what each means for signing autonomy), clarifies the chain field (501 = Solana, EVM = testing adapter), and describes the secret parameter's security implications. It also gives context for the address field by linking it to wallet/smart-account types. This goes well beyond the schema's terse 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 states the tool's purpose: 'connect a signer' as step 1 of the Signet flow, and explicitly distinguishes it from the subsequent signet_grant and signet_action steps. It names the specific resource (signer) and action (connect), and the title reinforces the 'act with value' context, making it unambiguous even among many siblings.

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 gives explicit step-by-step usage: 'Step 1: register HOW you sign. Then signet_grant, then signet_action.' It also explains when to choose each backend (secret_ref for full autonomy, wallet for manual signing, smart_account for session keys) and clarifies chain-specific behavior (Solana vs EVM adapter). This leaves no doubt about when to invoke this tool relative to alternatives.

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