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

Annotations declare a non-destructive write with open-world access; the description adds real context beyond that by asserting the link is never modified and that the call works while bonded. It stops short of describing success/failure outcomes or what the proof grants.

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 short sentences with the core action and its non-mutating guarantee front-loaded, followed by the prerequisite. No filler.

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 5-required-parameter authentication-style tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, and side-effect safety, but omits what a successful proof returns or how failures are surfaced.

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 only 20% (session only), so the description must carry weight. It clarifies that nonce must be freshly obtained from trust_wallet_challenge and pairs with signature, but botId and solanaPubkey remain unexplained in both schema and description.

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+resource: proving control of a wallet that is already linked, and explicitly says it never changes the link. That implicitly separates it from trust_link_wallet, though it never names the sibling outright.

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 a clear precondition: use a fresh nonce from trust_wallet_challenge together with a signature, which tells the agent the required call sequence. It does not state explicit when-not cases or name trust_link_wallet as the alternative for unlinked wallets.

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