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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses single-use behavior, a 5-minute TTL, and the real-wallet vs sandbox distinction. It stops short of describing response shape, error behavior, or any auth/permission requirements beyond the nonce flow.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the action and then add the critical constraints (single-use, TTL, sandbox exception). Every phrase earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the nonce/message purpose, TTL, single-use nature, and sandbox exclusion. It could still specify the response format more explicitly, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the wallet parameter is already documented. The description adds useful context by framing the tool as the real-wallet path and saying it is not needed for sandbox identities, but it does not add syntax or validation detail 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 states a specific action ('a one-time nonce + message to sign') and places it in context ('Real-wallet path, step 1'). It also distinguishes the tool from sandbox identity flows with 'Not needed for sandbox identities.' An agent can identify both the purpose and the relevant boundary versus sibling identity tools.

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 clearly says when the nonce is required ('Every signed identity call needs a fresh nonce') and when it is not ('Not needed for sandbox identities'). However, it does not name the alternative tool or flow for sandbox identities, so an explicit alternative is missing.

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