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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining that the tool only returns a confirmation URL, never authorizes in-chat, and requires the wallet owner's browser approval. This is non-obvious behavioral context that complements openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false.

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 but front-loaded with the core purpose and packs workflow, exclusions, and next steps into a few sentences. The long dash-and-semicolon sentence is a bit run-on and could benefit from bullet structure, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

The behavioral workflow is thoroughly covered and an output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, the complete absence of input-parameter documentation for a six-parameter tool leaves an agent unable to correctly use optional fields, which is a significant completeness gap.

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%, and the description explains none of the six input parameters. Optional fields like capabilities, expires_at, label, and caller_id remain opaque; the only parameter-like reference, device_code, belongs to the polling tool, not this call.

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 — opening a browser-confirmation handshake for a session signer — and explicitly clarifies that it does not actually authorize the signer. It also distinguishes itself from authorize_session_signer and poll_session_signer_authorization within the same workflow.

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?

It gives explicit routing: this is the ONLY way to mint a session signer, authorize_session_signer always refuses with BROWSER_CONFIRMATION_REQUIRED, and the next step is to poll with poll_session_signer_authorization(device_code). This is strong, actionable when-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

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