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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: the token expires after 30 days, works only for the submitted address, provides gasless account setup via predictDEX's signer, grants no custody, and does not bypass region restrictions. These details meaningfully inform safe usage, and there is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, with caveats placed at the end. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or redundant restating of the title.

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 three-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the input flow, the returned artifact, and important boundary conditions. Minor gaps are the lack of an explicit prerequisite pointing to get_agent_challenge and the absence of details about how the returned token is delivered or used, but the description is strong enough for an agent to safely call the tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description refers broadly to the 'signed attestation' and 'your address only', which lightly contextualizes the parameters, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already documents for address, message, and signature.

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 states a specific verb ('Submit the signed attestation') and a concrete outcome ('Returns a 30-day agent token that unlocks gasless Polymarket account setup'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_agent_challenge, which only provide the challenge material, while attest_agent consumes the signed proof and produces the token.

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 usage context is implied rather than stated: the mention of a 'signed attestation' suggests this is the second step after obtaining a challenge, but the description does not explicitly say 'after get_agent_challenge' or name alternatives. It also does not give when-not-to-use conditions, so the agent must infer the flow from the sibling list.

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