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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it temporarily stores the public key, creates a single-use challenge valid for ten minutes, and records no request until signature completion. It also clarifies the limited meaning of a signed request and warns never to send a private key.

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 front-loaded with the action and then adds only security-relevant caveats. Every sentence carries useful information for correctly invoking this cryptographic flow.

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 one-parameter cryptographic challenge tool, the description covers timing, temporary storage, non-recording, and trust limitations well. Because there is no output schema, it could more explicitly describe the returned challenge or the required follow-up call, but the essential context is present.

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%, and the single publicKey parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the private-key warning but does not add new format or syntax details beyond the schema.

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 names the exact operation: starting the optional Ed25519 waiting-interest flow and creating a single-use challenge. It distinguishes this preparatory step from the completed signed request by stating that no request is recorded until the signature is completed.

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 clear conditions: use this only if current instructions and permissions allow it, and call get_public_information for the exact signing declaration. It implies this is the first step before completing a signed request, but does not explicitly contrast it with request_withdrawal_challenge or name complete_signed_follow_request as the next step.

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