assetfare_finish_wallet_auth

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's statement 'Makes a network request and consumes login-challenge state, but never signs or submits' adds valuable context beyond the annotations—specifically clarifying non-idempotency and non-destructive behavior. It also flags the output as 'sensitive', which is not in the annotations. This is strong added value, though it doesn't detail error or token-expiry behavior.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first sentence states purpose and output, the second provides usage constraints and side effects. It is front-loaded with the core action and uses phrasing that directly guides the agent without redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description mentions the returned output ('sensitive wallet-bound access token'), the network request, state consumption, and the exact conditions for use. For a four-parameter authentication tool with clear annotations and schema coverage, nothing essential an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, all four parameters (signature, challenge_id, source_wallet, terms_version) are already well-documented in the schema with type, constraints, and guidance. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating the legacy context; it does not compensate for any schema gaps because there are none. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Verify the caller's signature over the exact legacy login challenge and return a sensitive wallet-bound access token,' which specifies a specific verb, resource, and outcome. It further differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly naming the prerequisite (assetfare_start_wallet_auth) and excluding v2 sessions, transaction signatures, and arbitrary messages.

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 explicitly commands 'Use only after assetfare_start_wallet_auth' and lists what not to use it for ('v2 session, transaction signature, or arbitrary message'), providing clear positive and negative use cases. This leaves no ambiguity for an agent choosing between this and the many sibling tools.

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