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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds concrete behavioral details: it replaces any previously linked wallet and the message expires after a few minutes. These details go beyond the annotations and are important for correct invocation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and prerequisite. Every sentence adds useful context, and there is 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. With full parameter coverage in the schema and annotations covering the mutation safety profile, the description provides the remaining workflow, replacement behavior, and expiry constraint.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter, including the pattern and EIP-191 signature format. The description only loosely ties the message and signature to get_wallet_link_message, offering little beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: link the wallet that will pay Handshake fees. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_wallet_link_message by describing the action of submitting a signature rather than generating the 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?

Names the prerequisite action through get_wallet_link_message and explains the signature submission flow. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or list alternative linking methods, but the context is clear.

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