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

Goes far beyond the sparse annotations: discloses fail-closed enforcement, the Solana-specific side effect that revoke DESTROYS the session key, JWT auth requirement, hard on-chain spend caps, case-sensitive allowlist matching, and standing-mandate semantics. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false.

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded, but the description is a long run-on block with redundant restatements of schema semantics (e.g. no_expiry:true, or expires_in_days:0) and repeated 'revoke' mentions. It would be easier to parse with bullets or tighter sentence boundaries.

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 12-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers a lot: JWT requirement, Solana specifics, standing mandates, fail-closed behavior, and even the returned session_address. It does not fully explain cross-chain behavior or all optional parameter interactions, but it is sufficient for correct selection and invocation in most cases.

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 high (92%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value on top: chain-501 Solana behavior, funding the session keypair as the real cap, target_allowlist being base58 and case-sensitive, and the meaning of no_expiry/expires_in_days as standing mandates. It does not explain every parameter, but the schema already covers most.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'authorize an actor ... to do specific actions within LIMITS' and frames it as 'Step 2' in the Signet flow. This clearly distinguishes it from connect/approve/revoke siblings by focusing on the creation of a scoped mandate.

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?

Provides concrete usage context: 'Set require_approval=false for no-human execution' and explains when a STANDING mandate is appropriate ('Use for a per-chain wallet mandate the agent should keep'). It does not explicitly name siblings as alternatives, but the when-to-use guidance is clear enough.

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