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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the registry verifies the proof, that the document is re-signed, and crucially that the key is 'used for this call only'. It leaves gaps around failure modes, idempotency, and what 'reaches L1' actually means operationally.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the two-step wallet caveat, with little wasted text. A dense single paragraph, slightly heavy on jargon but efficient.

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 7-parameter, multi-step mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key mental model (proof verification, re-signing, key ephemerality, wallet two-call flow). Missing pieces are return expectations and error behavior, but the core callable context is present.

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 57%, with value-format hints already in the schema, and the description adds the sequencing meaning for wallet_message/wallet_signature (step 2 of the wallet flow). It says nothing about eid or private_key_jwk semantics, so it only partially compensates for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb (add) and resource (alias) and enumerates the four alias types, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like openentity_record or openentity_adopt, and the phrase 'reaches L1' is internal jargon an agent may not resolve.

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 gives concrete procedural guidance for the wallet case ('wallet is two calls: the first returns a message to sign...'), which is genuine usage context. However, it never says when to choose this over sibling tools or what preconditions (e.g., existing eid) are required.

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