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 thoroughly: it discloses side effects, non-money-movement, the pending_provision fallback when Turnkey is not configured, and the fact that a pending wallet cannot sign or hold funds. This is strong behavioral disclosure beyond the bare minimum.

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 three focused sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then covers prerequisite, return purpose, exclusions, and a key failure mode. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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?

Given the small parameter set, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it covers prerequisite, input scope, return value, what the tool does not do, and the pending_provision behavior. An agent has enough context to select and call the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explicitly references userId and family, and enumerates the allowed family values. It could add a bit more about userId format or wallet family implications, but it gives enough semantic grounding for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 ('Provision'), a concrete resource (Turnkey-custodied wallet address for a userId), and a scope constraint (one chain family: evm, solana, sui). It clearly differentiates the tool from siblings by noting it does not fund or move money.

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 clearly establishes a prerequisite ('Requires ava_session first') and states what the tool is for versus what it explicitly does not do ('does not fund the wallet and does not move any money'). It does not name alternative sibling tools for when to use them instead, but the usage context is still clear.

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