export_wallet_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses a critical behavioral trait: the export is 'deliberately human-gated and is not performed by this tool.' That prevents an agent from assuming a key is returned. It does not, however, say what the tool does return (instructions/URL, etc.).

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?

Two tight sentences; the key clarification (that the tool only explains, and export is human-gated) is front-loaded. Nothing is wasted.

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 one-param informational tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, gating, and scope adequately. The main remaining gap is not describing what the agent gets back, but this is minor given the simplicity.

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% with a single documented param ('Hosted wallet ID to export'), so the schema already carries the semantic load. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, which is the baseline case.

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 uses a specific verb ('explain how') and resource ('private key of a hosted custodial AgentWallet'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the action its name implies by stating it is educational, not an exporter. It is clear and self-distinguishing, though the name 'export_wallet_key' still risks misleading an agent at a glance.

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 states the context of use ('so it can be moved to self-custody or any other wallet') and clarifies the tool does not perform the export. It does not name sibling alternatives, but the purpose-to-context mapping is clear enough to route correctly.

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