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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explains the state transition to 'pending', the hard rule that no key material reaches Crank, the branching behavior, and the no-op case for already-registered wallets. It does not contradict annotations. It could mention side effects or errors more explicitly, but the added context is substantial.

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 dense and information-rich, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The branching logic is explained in a compact paragraph. It is not overly long for the complexity of the behavior, but the heavy use of technical jargon and the run-on structure of the second sentence slightly reduce readability. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (stateful registration flow, branching on wallet type, hard security rule, follow-up tools), the description covers the essential decision logic and next steps. It does not explain the output schema or return values, but an output schema exists, so that is not required. It also does not explicitly state error cases or prerequisites beyond the 'not reached registered' condition, but the description is largely complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 for parameter meaning. The description explains the wallet_address concept implicitly (OWNER/SessionSigner vs TURNKEY-AUTONOMOUS wallet) but does not explicitly define the 'wallet_address' parameter or the optional 'caller_id' parameter. The schema itself provides names and types, but the description adds only indirect meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description gives some context but does not fully compensate for the 0% schema 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 ('Re-enter an AGNTA AgentIdentity binding that has not reached registered') and distinguishes it from the submit/poll siblings by explaining the branching flow. It is not a tautology and names the resource (AGNTA AgentIdentity binding). However, the verb 're-enter' is somewhat unusual and the description is dense, so it is clear but not maximally crisp.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: for bindings that have not reached 'registered', and it branches on signing capability (OWNER/SessionSigner vs TURNKEY-AUTONOMOUS). It also names the follow-up tools (submit_agnta_identity_registration, poll_agnta_identity_registration) and states that an already-registered wallet is a no-op. This is strong usage guidance with clear exclusions.

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