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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does well on idempotency keys, required scopes, synchronous execution, and the latency caveat for first-call Turnkey creation, but it never says what happens when a conflicting customer/namespace/chain already exists (reuse vs. error), whether wallet creation is atomic with vault creation, or what happens on partial failure.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and back-loaded with the latency caveat, with zero filler. The parenthetical scope notation '(treasury + wallets:write)' is dense but earns its space by signaling authorization requirements.

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 mutation tool with nested objects, five parameters, and no output schema, the description supplies the return value ('wallet address immediately'), the timing caveat, and the idempotency contract. The remaining gap is conflict/failure semantics when a customer already exists, which matters for an upsert-style tool.

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, but the description adds genuine meaning the schema cannot express: it reveals that externalCustomerId, namespace, and chainId form the composite idempotency key, telling the agent which inputs must be held stable across retries. It adds little about credential or spendingPolicy, but the idempotency tuple insight is real added value.

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 compound verb (create or sync), a specific resource (customer vault with its wallet), and the required scopes. An agent can tell this provisions customer vaults rather than generic jobs or credentials, though it never names which sibling (e.g. create_provisioning_job) it supersedes.

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 word 'sync' plus the idempotency statement implies this is the call to make on every provisioning attempt, including retries, but the description never explicitly says when to prefer it over create_provisioning_job, create_vault_credential, or list_wallets. Usage is inferable rather than directed.

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