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

Annotations provide basic hints (readOnly false, openWorld true), but the description adds critical behavioral context: returns a pairing URL + device_code, requires wallet-signature gated approval in the user's own browser, forbids accepting in-chat consent, and references a spec section. These details go well beyond annotations and disclose the sensitive confirmation workflow.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. It then packs essential safety and next-step information without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 are handled externally. The description covers the workflow (open handshake, show URL, require user approval, poll until done) and safety constraints. The only notable gap is the missing explanation of optional parameters (caller_id, display_name), which prevents full completeness.

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% (no parameter descriptions). The description does not explain the three input parameters: agent_id, caller_id, and display_name. While agent_id is inferable as the target wallet, caller_id and display_name remain ambiguous, forcing the agent to guess their purpose. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Open the browser-confirmation handshake for a Lane 2 agent wallet.' It explicitly differentiates from related tools by saying 'Does NOT create a wallet,' and specifies the output (pairing-style confirmation URL + device_code). This is a specific verb+resource with clear sibling distinction.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: it's for enabling an agent wallet via browser confirmation, not for creation. It instructs to poll with poll_agent_wallet_enable(device_code) until status changes, and provides strong constraints (ask user to approve in their own browser, never accept in-chat 'yes'). This is actionable and contrasts with alternatives.

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