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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=false), so the description's added value is the semantic consequence of the signature parameter (proven vs merely declared) and the auth requirement. It does not disclose error behavior or whether re-binding an already-bound wallet is a no-op, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, then the signature distinction, then the auth prerequisite. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no enums, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and the key behavioral distinction, while the schema handles the stream_id/label/challenge_id scoping. It could say more about failure modes or what is returned, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining what the signature parameter actually accomplishes in the domain (proof vs declaration and why checkers care), which is meaning the schema's mechanical '65-byte hex signature' text does not convey.

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 ('bind the wallet to your organization's Privi Passport') plus the outcome it enables ('transactions pass KYA checks'), and its 'Step 2' framing plus the bind/unbind sibling names let an agent place it precisely in the KYA family.

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?

Gives clear conditions for the two modes ('with a wallet signature the binding is proven; without one it is only declared (most checkers require proven)') and states the prerequisite 'Requires the organization API key'. It stops short of explicitly naming kya_challenge as the prerequisite call or ruling out alternatives, but the context for when to call it is clear.

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