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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is local and performs no chain write, which is real value. However, for a tool that produces secret key material it says nothing about whether the private key is returned, persisted, or how it should be handled, which is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the scope qualifier in parentheses. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter keygen tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum indicate what the agent receives back and whether the keypair is stored or returned. 'Local, no chain write' covers the side-effect profile but leaves the return value and key-handling implications unstated.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case per the rubric. The description adds no parameter content because none is needed, and nothing in the schema requires elaboration.

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 (Generate) and a precise resource (ML-DSA-44 post-quantum identity keypair), and the 'local, no chain write' qualifier makes it distinguishable from sibling operations like veya_pq_sign, veya_pq_verify, and veya_register_pq_onchain. An agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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 parenthetical 'local, no chain write' implies this is a prerequisite step taken before signing or on-chain registration, but the description never states when to call it versus alternatives or that it precedes veya_pq_sign. Usage is only implied.

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