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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context: a cryptographic signature over 'claim:{agent_id}:{entity_id}' is required and both parties must consent, plus the important side-effect detail that the agent retains its own identity.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by the hard prerequisite (signature) and the identity caveat. No filler; every clause adds information an agent needs.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the signature/consent model is well covered. But for a 5-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage, the silence on scopes and workspace_scope leaves an agent unable to fill the optional arguments correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies the signature payload format and implicitly ties agent_id and claimant_entity_id to that payload, but 'scopes' and 'workspace_scope' are never mentioned anywhere, leaving two of five parameters completely undocumented.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Bind') and resource (registered agent → user/org account) and names the mechanism ('acted_for grant'). It is reasonably distinct from register_agent, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with that sibling, leaving the register-vs-claim boundary implicit.

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 consent framing ('the agent consents, and the account consents') implies this is a post-registration linking step requiring a signature, which hints at prerequisites. However, it never states when to use this instead of register_agent, nor any exclusions or failure conditions.

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