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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that a placeholder signature will be refused and the refusal contains the expected message to sign, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, the flow is not clearly explained, and the feedback promotion is irrelevant.

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 description is verbose and includes promotional content about feedback, complaints, and quote requests, which is irrelevant to the tool's function. The core purpose is stated first but then buried under a complex signature explanation and unrelated marketing, making it poorly structured and not concise.

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 tool requiring a specific signature flow and three parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not clearly explain the two-step process (send placeholder, get expected message, then send correct signature) and does not describe the return format or error behavior beyond the refusal. The feedback content adds no value and distracts from the core usage.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (signature, nonce, signedAt) at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond the schema; it only references the signature placeholder without clarifying the nonce or signedAt usage.

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 number of objects and bytes for the wallet's storage. The verb 'how many' and resource 'storage usage' are specific, and it is distinct from sibling storage_list which would list individual objects.

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 gives some usage context (free, no account, placeholder signature flow) but does not explicitly say when to use this vs alternatives like storage_list or storage_read. It doesn't mention any exclusions or conditions for choosing this tool over others.

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