sip018_sign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the unlocked-wallet prerequisite and the dual verification property. It omits whether signing is deterministic, how domain binding prevents replay (left to schema), and what happens if the wallet is locked or the domain omits a verifying contract.

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 tool content is front-loaded and efficient, but the trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities' is unrelated promotional padding that does not help an agent invoke this signing tool and dilutes focus.

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 an unannotated signing tool with a nested 2-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, use cases, and the wallet prerequisite. It never states what is returned (signature format/encoding), which an agent needs in order to chain it into verify or contract calls.

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 100%, and the nested domain/message semantics (type hints, implicit conversions, replay protection) are fully documented there. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Sign') plus resource ('structured Clarity data using SIP-018 standard') and clarifies the output is a signature verifiable off-chain and on-chain. This clearly separates it from siblings sip018_verify and sip018_hash.

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?

Lists concrete use cases (meta-transactions, off-chain voting, permits, proving address control) and states the prerequisite of an unlocked wallet. It does not, however, name the sibling alternatives (sip018_hash to build the digest, sip018_verify to check it) or say when not to use it.

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