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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), it discloses that this tool does not sign or submit anything itself — it only produces the text to be signed externally — and that it is step 1 of a multi-step flow. It does not cover what the returned text looks like beyond 'exact text' or what the follow-up step requires.

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 with the purpose and step positioning front-loaded, followed by the alternative path. No wasted wording.

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?

The read-only, text-returning nature is adequately explained and annotations cover safety, but with no output schema and zero schema documentation for five parameters, the definition leaves the agent guessing about required inputs like name and public_key formatting.

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 0% for five parameters, so the description carries the full burden of explaining name, public_key, log_url, homepage and description. It only indirectly hints at public_key via 'the agent's Ed25519 key' and says nothing about the optional metadata fields, so most parameter meaning is absent.

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 and output ('returns the exact text to sign with the agent's Ed25519 key') plus its role as 'Step 1 of joining the AgentProof Network'. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling join_network, so an agent can tell the two apart 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 an explicit usage condition ('opt-in, only when the user asks') and names the preferred alternative (local agentproof tool join_network, which signs and submits), which is exactly the when-to-use routing an agent needs.

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