pillar_create_wallet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully explains that the tool opens the Pillar website, requires an email, and involves a referral link, but it does not describe permissions, whether the wallet is created immediately or only via website, key custody, costs, reversibility, or what the tool returns.

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 front-loaded with the main action and then adds useful procedural details. It is generally efficient, though the final tip about `earning_opportunities` is slightly tangential to the core creation action.

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 simple one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides enough context about the website handoff, email requirement, and referral caveat. It still leaves some ambiguity about the relationship to `pillar_direct_create_wallet` and what the user should expect after registration, but it is largely complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the sole `referral` parameter, including its optional nature and default behavior. The description mentions referral links but does not add syntax, format, or validation details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Create a new Pillar smart wallet.' It also clarifies that the process opens the Pillar website for registration, which distinguishes it somewhat from a purely backend wallet tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling `pillar_direct_create_wallet`, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies this is the tool for creating a Pillar smart wallet and gives referral-related instructions. But it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `pillar_direct_create_wallet`, `wallet_create`, or `pillar_connect`. Usage is inferable but not explicitly guided.

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