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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description goes well beyond this by revealing that the tool returns installation/usage instructions rather than performing signing, that the local connector holds the wallet channel, and that the phone approves. This is exactly the kind of architectural context an agent needs and cannot infer from structured fields.

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 what the tool is before the when-to-call triggers. No filler, and each sentence contributes distinct information (purpose, architecture, invocation criteria).

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?

With no output schema, the description does convey that the response is explanatory content and clarifies the signing boundary. It could say slightly more about what the returned instructions contain (installer links, registration snippets), but it is complete enough for an agent to call 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 100% with both parameters (os, client) fully described and enum-constrained, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no additional param syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (explains/installs) and resource (the LOCAL Radix signing connector, radix-connector-mcp), and explicitly distinguishes this tool from the stateless HTTP server that 'cannot sign'. An agent can tell this apart from build_wallet_request and check_signing_request without opening their schemas.

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, concrete trigger list: 'Call this when the user wants to send/sign a transaction, stake, create a token, deploy, or log in with Radix.' It does not name a specific alternative tool for the non-signing cases, so it falls just short of full when-not/alternatives guidance.

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