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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: results are time-window dependent ('right now'), and certain signals would revert because of wallet ownership, prior attestation, or the 21 Key-attestation cap. It does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only or describe result shape, but the revert/cap disclosure is substantive context not available from structured fields.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the scope and then the parameter effect; every clause carries information. The second sentence is dense with domain terms and packs three exclusions into one colon list, which is efficient but slightly hard to parse on first read.

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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers selection semantics well but says nothing about what a returned 'signal' looks like or how results are ordered/limited. An agent knows what to pass but not what it will receive.

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 0%, so the description must explain the single parameter, and it does: keyId filters out signals that would revert, with the three exclusion categories spelled out. It stops short of indicating that keyId is an integer identifier sourced from z1n_get_key, leaving the value's origin implicit.

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 resource and scope: signals currently inside their attestation window, which is a meaningful subset distinct from a generic signal listing. It does not explicitly name z1n_list_signals or explain how this differs from it, and 'attestation window' is domain jargon left undefined, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The description gives conditional guidance for keyId ('pass keyId to remove the ones that would revert'), which implies the wallet-scoped use case. However, it never says when to choose this over z1n_list_signals or z1n_get_key, nor does it state any prerequisite (e.g., that a wallet must be connected).

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