Get Instances Customers Blockchain Wallets Sign Message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the annotations—it doesn't say what message is produced, the signing flow, or any auth requirements, so it fails to add useful behavioral context.

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?

It is a single short phrase with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise—brevity here sacrifices clarity.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should explain what is returned (e.g., a message to be signed) and how it relates to the wallet ID and customer. Instead it leaves the return semantics and the sign-message flow entirely unexplained.

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 coverage is only 50% (customer_id is described, instance_id is not), and the description mentions neither parameter. It does nothing to compensate for the missing instance_id documentation.

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 pairs the verb 'Retrieve' with 'Blockchain Wallet Message', but the tool name says 'SignMessage', leaving it ambiguous whether the tool signs or merely fetches a message to be signed. It also doesn't distinguish itself from the many sibling blockchain-wallet tools such as GetV1InstancesCustomersBlockchainWalletsById.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites or context are given. An agent must infer usage purely from the awkward name.

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