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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the mutual proof mechanism, the format of signatures, and the one-to-one mapping anti-sybil constraint. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the parameter descriptions.

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 purpose. While concise, the second sentence is dense with technical details, slightly reducing readability. Still efficient overall.

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?

The description covers the core binding process but omits details like error handling, return values, or prerequisites. Given the tool's complexity (5 params, no output schema), it is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 60%, with nonce and address lacking descriptions. However, the description clarifies their roles by showing how they are used in the signing message, adding meaning beyond the schema. It compensates for the missing 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 tool's purpose: to bind a Gitlawb DID to a 0x wallet using mutual proof, enabling LAWBOR reputation attachment. It specifies the verb (bind) and resources (DID, wallet), and distinguishes from sibling tools by describing a unique 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 implies usage for binding DIDs but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among siblings. It mentions the anti-sybil constraint but lacks explicit 'use when' or 'use instead of' instructions.

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