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

Beyond annotations, the description adds the return payload fields, the requirement for an API key, and the nuance that idempotency applies 'for the same wallet.' This complements the idempotentHint annotation rather than merely repeating it.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: core purpose, sequencing, exclusions, return fields, idempotency, and auth requirement. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 by enumerating the JSON return fields. It also covers all invocation requirements: signature source, sequencing, same key, and API key necessity. Nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds valuable invocation context by tying the signature to the message from bind_key_start and requiring the same key, which goes slightly beyond the schema text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: completing the second step of binding an API key to a wallet by passing the wallet's signature. It explicitly differentiates itself from bind_key_start and claim_agent_complete, so an agent can identify it precisely among siblings.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it right after bind_key_start, with the same key.' It also names exclusions: not for the first step (use bind_key_start) and not for agent claims (use claim_agent_complete).

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