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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the burden. It only says the tool 'returns' the mnemonic and stresses informing the owner, but fails to disclose that this is a highly sensitive operation, whether special auth is required, or the risk of exposing the phrase. This is a significant gap for a security-critical tool.

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 repeated verbatim, which wastes space and harms conciseness. The paragraph about owner awareness is a run-on sentence lacking structure. The parameter list is clean, but overall the description would benefit from tighter editing.

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 tool returns a sensitive mnemonic with an output schema, but the description lacks necessary context about security, authorization, and the significance of the returned data. Given the empty annotations, this incompleteness could mislead an agent about the tool's risk. The warning about owner awareness is the only contextual hint.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description compensates with @param lines that explain each field's origin, e.g., 'wallet_api_token provided by /access/login'. This adds value beyond the schema but remains minimal, providing no format validation or usage details.

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 returns the wallet's 24-word mnemonic phrase for secret recovery, which is specific and distinguishes it from typical wallet inspection tools. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling recovery tools like access_recover, so it lacks sibling differentiation. The repetition of the first sentence is a minor distraction but doesn't obscure purpose.

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 the tool should be used when the wallet owner needs their recovery phrase, stating it is important to make them aware for future use. It does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives such as access_recover. The guidance is vague ('when required').

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