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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with that, adding that registration is gasless and requires an out-of-band signature with the owner key. It does not disclose whether the typed data carries a nonce or expiry, or whether preparing twice is safe, which are meaningful gaps for a signing payload.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the required next action and a default note. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly characterizes the return value as EIP-712 typed data and tells the agent how to consume it. It stops short of describing payload lifetime or contents, but the essential calling contract is covered.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The only added semantic, that the trading signer defaults to the owner, restates the schema's own 'default: owner' note, so the description contributes little beyond the structured fields.

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: returns EIP-712 typed data that registers a new agent. It also implicitly separates itself from submit_registration by naming that tool as the follow-up step, so an agent can tell the prepare/submit pair apart without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit two-step workflow: sign the returned data with eth_signTypedData_v4 using the owner key, then call submit_registration. The condition and the exact alternative tool are named, leaving nothing to inference.

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