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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does so richly: atomic single transaction, idempotent re-call is not an error, conflict semantics for registered/retired wallets, effects scoped to future trades and listings while settled purchases stay verified, and a no-seller-text reply guarantee.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the paragraph is dense rather than padded, with each clause carrying distinct information (prerequisites, conflicts, effects, idempotency). It is long for a single paragraph but not repetitive.

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 mutation with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns: atomicity, conflict conditions, post-move effects on listings and settled purchases, idempotency behavior, and the absence of seller-written text in replies. Little an agent needs is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between the two proofs — the recovery key signs getChallenge's message, while wallet_proof is signed by the NEW wallet's key for purpose update_wallet with subject the profile_id — which is the key semantic an agent needs to construct the payload correctly.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb+resource ('Move your profile to a new wallet address') and immediately distinguishes the two motivating cases (key migration, compromised key). An agent can tell this apart from rotateKey or createProfile without opening any 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?

It gives clear context: when to use (migration/compromise), what is required (challenge from getChallenge plus wallet_proof), and what is refused (missing either, wallet already held by another profile, previously retired wallet). It names getChallenge as the prerequisite call but does not explicitly compare against alternatives like rotateKey.

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