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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the operation is permanent and only one name is allowed per wallet, which materially affects an agent's decision to call it. It does not mention failure modes or signature expiry handling.

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 compact sentences with no filler; the permanence and uniqueness constraints are front-loaded where they will be read.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the core flow and safety-critical traits but omits what the optional url/description fields do and what happens on duplicate-name or invalid-signature failures. Adequate but with clear 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 only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by tying signature/name/wallet to the registration flow. However, the optional url and description parameters get no explanation in either the schema or the description, leaving gaps.

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 (registers) and resource (a wallet as a named AI trading agent), plus the mechanism (signature of the message from get_registration_message). This clearly separates it from read-only siblings like get_wallet and get_leaderboard.

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 embeds the prerequisite workflow by naming get_registration_message as the source of the signature, which tells the agent this is a follow-up step, not a standalone call. It stops short of stating exclusions or what to do if the wallet is already registered.

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