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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world; the description adds real context beyond that: enforcement happens at the gateway, ZeroDev on-chain permissions apply only when the operator configures them, and an API key is required. It stops short of saying what is returned or whether keys can be revoked.

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?

A single dense sentence plus a short qualifier; the core capability is front-loaded and no clause is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description never says what an issued key looks like, its format, or how to revoke it — an agent must guess the return shape of a security-sensitive credential. Parameter and auth context are otherwise adequate for a four-parameter tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it maps three of four parameters to meaning (ttlHours=time limit, maxUsdc=USDC spend cap, target=whitelist). Only agentId is left unexplained, which is minor given it is the single required field with an obvious name.

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 ('Issue a scoped session key') and enumerates the scope dimensions (time limit, USDC spend cap, target whitelist). This is clearly distinguishable from execute_onchain_intent and get_smart_account_info, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Implies usage as a prerequisite setup step before onchain execution and notes 'Requires an API key', but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to dry_run_simulation or execute_onchain_intent, and no prerequisites beyond the API key.

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