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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that this returns signing text for identity linking, but it does not explain whether key/proof are needed or how the result relates to wallet_link. With annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It communicates the core output directly.

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 tool has no output schema and three undocumented parameters, yet the description omits parameter roles and the workflow with wallet_link. It is sufficient to grasp the high-level idea but not complete enough to invoke 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?

There are three parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain address, key, or proof. An agent cannot infer the role of key/proof or the format expected for any parameter from the text.

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 output and resource: the exact text a Solana wallet signs to link it to a ce-net identity, including account or agent. The purpose is clear, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as wallet_link or wallet_vote_message.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus wallet_link or wallet_vote_message, nor any stated prerequisite or sequencing. The usage is only implied by the phrase "signs to link it."

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