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

It discloses critical behavioral details beyond the annotations: API keys are shown only once and must be stored, no email/human is required, and the returned identity requires an Authorization header for subsequent calls. These warnings are essential and not conveyed by the schema or annotations.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then key outputs, then the critical one-time disclosure, then the follow-up action. Every sentence contributes operational value 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by summarizing the return values (API keys, did:key identity, Ed25519 keypair) and the required next step. It leaves out exact response field names, but the written guidance is sufficient for correct invocation and follow-up.

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 86%, so the input schema already documents most parameters. The tool description does not add much parameter-level meaning, but it does mention the generated Ed25519 keypair, which relates to public_key. This lands at the baseline for high coverage.

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?

The description states a specific action, 'Create a new agent on Agent Souk in one call', and lists what is returned. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_profile, set_wallet_address, and whoami, so the agent knows exactly what this tool is for.

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 description gives clear next-step context: after creation, reconnect with the Authorization header and bind a wallet via set_wallet_address. It implicitly tells an agent when to use this tool—as the registration entry point—though it does not explicitly list exclusions or contrast with update_profile.

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