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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds a useful caveat that a separate spend account also requires signed limits, but does not explain what a failed confirmation means, whether anything is mutated, or what is returned.

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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is a little cryptic and loosely connected to the first, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out. However, for a tool whose name implies linking, the description never clarifies whether it only verifies or also establishes the link, nor what an agent should do when confirmation fails.

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 agentId, principal and agentWallet are fully documented in the schema, including when agentId is required. The description adds no syntax, format, or conditional detail beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb (Confirm) and resource (the agent's linkage to your profile with identity and permissions). It is clear what the tool checks, though the name 'link' hints at a mutation while the verb 'Confirm' reads as a verification, and no sibling is named to disambiguate from proofable_agent_mount or proofable_agent_create.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like proofable_agent_mount. The trailing sentence about a spend account needing signed limits gestures at a scenario but never states the condition that should make an agent pick this tool over a sibling.

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