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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the seed stays in the agent's environment, that AgentTrust only sees public address and signed transactions, and that create_agent_wallet has the insecure behavior of returning a seed in plaintext. It does not explicitly state 'this tool has no side effects' but 'returns a guide' strongly implies an informational, read-only operation.

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 description is a compact three-part structure: what it returns, when to use it, and why it's safer than the alternative. Every sentence earns its place even though the second and third paragraphs restate partially overlapping information.

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 no-parameter informational tool with an output schema, the description provides the key context: purpose, usage, and security trade-off versus the sibling. It could mention what the output guide contains, but that is fairly covered by the output schema and the description's overall scope is sufficient.

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?

The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the description needs to explain no parameters. Nothing about parameter semantics is missing; a 4 is appropriate for a parameter-less functional tool.

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 names a specific verb and resource — 'returns the recommended production wallet setup' — and explicitly contrasts itself with create_agent_wallet(), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without guessing.

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 gives a direct instruction with a condition: 'Call this instead of create_agent_wallet() when building a production agent,' and explains the security rationale that justifies the choice. This is explicit, actionable guidance.

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