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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical behavioral impact (controls payment attribution), emphasizes user consent, and explains the distinction between verified and unverified wallets. This is substantive context beyond a simple 'set' operation, though it does not detail return values or error conditions.

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 moderately long but well-structured: purpose, critical warning, alternative, and optional verification flow. Each sentence adds value, though the all-caps 'IMPORTANT' and repeated emphasis could be tightened without loss of meaning.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers essential behaviors: user consent, verification mechanics, and payment attribution. It does not specify what the tool returns or error cases, but the focused scope makes this adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 schema already describes all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the optional 'signature' and 'nonce' parameters by explaining they verify ownership via EIP-191 and enable payment attribution, which goes beyond the schema's syntax-only descriptions.

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 clearly states the action ('Set the wallet address') and the resource ('for a registered agent'), making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_wallet_nonce by focusing on the write operation.

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 explicitly instructs when to use the tool (only after user confirmation, never autonomously) and provides an alternative (create a wallet via CDP AgentKit when a wallet is needed). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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