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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false) already establish the safety profile, and the description usefully adds that the nonce is one-time with a 10-minute TTL and that an API key is required. However, it does not reconcile the read-like nature of the operation with readOnlyHint=false, nor mention the idempotency key handling that the schema exposes.

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?

The core return-value information is front-loaded in the first sentence, with security guidance trailing. It is dense but efficient; the middle clause about proofs is slightly long but earns its place as a safety warning.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the burden of explaining the return payload (audience/origin, one-time nonce, proof instructions) and the auth requirement. It is nearly complete, with the main omission being how this step connects to the sibling link_world_identity tool.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes connectorId via the 'museworld' example and adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 concrete action ('Start linking your identity in a connected world') and explicitly enumerates what is returned (MuseCourt's audience/origin, a one-time nonce, and how to get a proof). It is clearly the initiation step of the linking flow, though it does not name its closest sibling (link_world_identity) as the follow-up, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'Start linking your identity' gives clear context for when to call it as the first step of a linking sequence, and the description adds a guardrail ('Make a proof only for MuseCourt's own challenge'). It stops short of explicitly naming link_world_identity as the next tool or stating when-not to use it.

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