pillar_key_info

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden; 'Show' plus the field list implies a safe read, but it never states that it is non-mutating, whether the private key is exposed or redacted, or what permissions are needed. The enumeration partially compensates for the missing output schema.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and dense with useful specifics. The appended 'Tip' about `earning_opportunities` is unrelated promotional filler that does not help an agent call this tool correctly.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, listing the returned fields (pubkey, smart wallet, lock status, stored keys) supplies most of what an agent needs to know what comes back. Only the safety/permission profile is left unstated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. No parameters are undocumented.

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?

Specific verb ('Show') plus resource ('signing key info') and an enumeration of returned fields (pubkey, smart wallet, lock status, stored keys). That clearly separates it from the sibling mutators pillar_key_generate/unlock/lock, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent must infer this is the read/status check to call before generate/unlock/lock. The one explicit pointer is to `earning_opportunities`, which is a promotional cross-sell, not a routing rule for choosing between key tools.

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