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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the effect of the optional authorization (multi-chain payouts, Bitcoin/Solana refunds, TRON funding), the response marker `authorised: true`, and the 409 conflict meaning. It omits idempotency (what happens if the wallet is already proved) and permission/auth requirements for the login wallet.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and input source, then the two-mode distinction, then the error case. Every clause carries information, though the telegraphic phrasing ('Alone it lets you give from that wallet') costs a little readability.

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 5-parameter nested-object mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the input flow, the optional path's consequences, the success marker, and the main failure code. Remaining gaps (repeat-proof behavior, other error codes, full response shape) are minor.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it identifies `message` as the wallet_proof_message output, `signature` as its signature, and `authorization` as the login wallet's signed authorizationMessage plus its consequence. `family` and `address` are left to the schema's enum/pattern, which is acceptable given they are self-documenting.

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 ('Record a wallet you proved') and immediately ties it to the sibling that produces its input ('the message from wallet_proof_message'), so the agent can tell it apart from wallet_proof_message and remove_wallet_proof without opening a schema.

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?

Explains the prerequisite flow (message must come from wallet_proof_message) and the decision between the two modes: without authorization it is EVM-only for giving, with authorization it counts on every chain. It gives clear context but never explicitly says when to prefer remove_wallet_proof or when not to call it at all.

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