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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses that it never signs, that a signature is required, and that registration requires no stake, which is real behavioral context. However it omits what happens on success, whether the wallet becomes permanently bound, idempotency, and any auth/error behavior — notable gaps for a mutation tool.

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 compact sentences, with the scope constraint front-loaded and the sibling routing last. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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?

Covers the prerequisite chain and sibling differentiation well for a 3-required-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema. It stops short of describing the post-registration state or return, which is the main remaining gap.

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 each of wallet, nonce, and signature is already documented. The description reinforces nonce freshness and signature-over-message semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (register) and resource (REAL wallet/identity), and explicitly names the sibling it is not — sandbox identities go to identity_sandbox_register. An agent can distinguish it from identity_get_nonce and identity_sandbox_register without opening any 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?

Explicitly gives the prerequisite flow (sign over identity_get_nonce's message), a key constraint (no stake required), and the alternative route for sandbox identities. Nothing about when to pick this tool is left to inference.

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