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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload (private key, first_name, last_name, mobile, email), which is meaningful given the missing output schema and signals sensitive PII/secret material. But it says nothing about auth requirements beyond api_key, failure modes, or the security weight of returning a private key.

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 first sentence is duplicated verbatim, and a truncated sentence plus docstring artifacts ('@param', '@return: a json object') leak into the text. The front-loaded sentence is fine, but there is clear waste and a broken fragment.

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?

No output schema exists, so explaining the return object is the right call and partially covers that gap. A 2-param tool is simple, but the definition omits when-to-use guidance and security/permission context, leaving it only minimally complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents both parameters, giving 'api_key' purpose ('allocated to your application') and 'words' format ('a set of 24 recovery words, space delimited'). The word-count and delimiter detail is genuinely additive beyond the bare schema.

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 and resource: 'Recovers the Netfluid wallet's private key from a set of 24 keywords.' Clear about the operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling netfluid__wallet_mnemonic, leaving ambiguity about when recovery differs from plain mnemonic retrieval.

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 only usage-adjacent text is a truncated fragment: 'It's preferable that the person trying to recover' — the condition is cut off mid-sentence, so no real guidance lands. No when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no routing against wallet_mnemonic or account_unlock.

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