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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it creates a record, optionally applies policy presets, and can create a pending record for a Turnkey provisioning ticket to fill. It also discloses the return fields, which is useful context. No contradictions with 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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states the core purpose, second explains how the record is created and key parameters, third lists return values. Every sentence adds value with no fluff, and it is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 tool with 6 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core mechanics (keyed by agent_id, policy presets, pending record flow) and return values. It does not explicitly explain how this relates to sibling lifecycle tools like enable_agent_wallet, but the context provided is sufficient for most use cases.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It does explain the semantics of default_policies (conservative | balanced | aggressive) and wallet_address (public key, optional, pending record behavior). However, it does not clarify agent_id, caller_id, display_name, or owner_address, leaving half the parameters under-explained.

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 begins with 'Register an agent wallet the caller controls (non-custodial control plane)', which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like enable_agent_wallet, kill_wallet, and wallet_status by focusing on registration and creating an AgentWallet record keyed by agent_id.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool — registering an agent wallet in a non-custodial control plane. It explains conditional usage (omit wallet_address for pending records) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria relative to sibling wallet tools, so it stops slightly short of a 5.

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