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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotency, and destructiveness, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds useful behavioral context: it verifies a signature, records exactly one activity hash, and does not approve the claim itself. This goes beyond what annotations indicate, though it could also have mentioned failure semantics or whether repeated submissions create duplicate records.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The primary action and purpose appear in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds an important governance boundary. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 two well-documented parameters, a rich set of annotations, and the presence of an output schema, only a small amount of narrative is needed. The description covers the tool's flow position, confirming the reserved-wallet signature, recording the single activity hash, and explicitly stating this is not claim approval. No essential context is missing for an agent to correctly invoke it.

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 the input schema already explains both parameters: payload is the exact output of prepare_agent_entry_activity and signature uses a EIP-191 format with a specific regex pattern. The description does not add further parameter details, but it doesn't need to because the schema handles that. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific action: verify the reserved-wallet signature and record one activity hash for issuer review. It also explicitly states a key exclusion, 'Does not approve a claim,' which distinguishes it from claim-approval flows like activate_agent_entry or reconcile_agent_entry_claim. This makes the tool's purpose 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 conveys clear context: this is used to submit signed activity evidence for issuer review. The statement 'Does not approve a claim' provides an important negative boundary, and the schema reinforces the workflow by requiring the exact payload returned by prepare_agent_entry_activity. However, it does not name an explicit alternative to use when the intent is claim approval, leaning on sibling names instead.

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