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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly=false, destructive=false) but do not say anything about key custody or retry behavior; the description adds the important operational constraint that private keys must be generated and retained outside Proofable with only the public address passed in. The retry guidance is valuable context given idempotentHint=false — it tells the agent which field makes repeated calls safe. Does not describe the response or the multi-step dedicated-account flow beyond a hint.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope before the key-handling caveat and retry rule. No filler, though the sentences are telegraphic enough that some ("Optional separate account and controls") are ambiguous on their own.

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 23-parameter creation tool with a full output schema and complete param documentation, the description supplies the essential non-schema context: default identity, key custody, and retry identity. It omits any mention of the two-phase identityQHash import flow, which is the one workflow an agent is most likely to get wrong.

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%, so the schema already documents all 23 parameters in depth. The description's account/key sentence largely restates the agentWallet schema text rather than adding new semantics, and it says nothing about preset, capabilities, or the delegation* policy fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a concrete verb+resource ("Create or import an agent on your profile") and states the default scope (signed-in account). But it never distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like proofable_agent_link or proofable_agent_mount — an agent can't tell from this text which of the agent-* tools to pick.

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?

"Default: signed-in account. Optional separate account and controls" implies when the optional path applies, and "keep the same agentId on retries" gives a procedural rule. But there's no explicit when-to-use versus proofable_agent_link / proofable_agent_mount, and no prerequisites (e.g., that a dedicated account needs a prior proofable_verify step) stated up front.

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