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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses a $2.00 USDC charge per call, an irreversible on-chain identity write, and the security tradeoff of generateKeys (secrets passing through the conversation, marked "discouraged"). That is exactly the kind of cost, side-effect, and security context annotations would otherwise supply.

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 actual capability is front-loaded before the signing mechanics, and every sentence adds operational value (signature template, key generation alternative, cost). It is one dense block, though, and the embedded signing template is hard to scan compared to a bulleted structure.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is created, what it costs if keys are generated, and what is returned. It omits failure behavior (duplicate name, insufficient USDC) and does not preview the non-key portion of the response, which an agent with no output schema would benefit from.

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 50%, and the description compensates substantially: it defines the roles of solanaAddress, evmAddress, apiKeyHash (hex SHA-256 of a fresh tb_live_ key), solanaSig, and evmSig, including exact encoding formats the schema omits. The issuedAt parameter is only implied through the "issued:<ISO-8601 now>" signing template and is never explicitly mapped as an input, leaving a small gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, "Onboard a new AI agent in one step," and enumerates exactly what the call produces: wallets, $1.00 credit, ERC-8004 identity on Base, ENS name, and MCP config. No sibling tool in the list does anything similar, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

It presents two explicit paths: supply your own addresses, key hash, and signatures, or set generateKeys=true and receive keys in the result. It also explains how to construct each signature (Ed25519 base64 for Solana, EIP-191 personal_sign hex for EVM) so the caller knows the required prerequisites. It does not state when the tool should not be used or address name-collision cases.

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