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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the wallet-first requirement and the need for a subsequent on-chain transaction and finalize call, which is important behavioral context. However, it does not describe what 'prepare' actually does (e.g., whether it creates a pending record, returns a transaction payload, or has side effects), leaving significant uncertainty.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is concise and well-structured, avoiding redundancy with 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?

Despite having 12 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the preparation step integrates with the wallet challenge flow, or what happens if the on-chain transaction is never sent. The description leaves too many gaps for an agent to use this tool confidently.

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 description coverage is 100% (all 12 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither improves nor detracts from the baseline.

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 specific verb ('prepare') and resource ('wallet-first ERC-8004 or Solana-8004 registration'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool finalize_agent_registration. It also implies the two-step nature, making its role unambiguous.

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 provides a usage workflow: the caller must later send the on-chain transaction from the same wallet and then call finalize_agent_registration. This gives clear context for when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or exclusions.

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