Sign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that approval happens asynchronously in a popup, which is non-obvious. But it omits whether the call blocks or returns a pending handle, and gives no hint that completion must be checked via the get_request_status sibling.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the salient behavioral fact. No filler.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It never says what the tool returns (a request ID or a signature), how the caller retrieves the result, or that it relates to get_request_status, leaving the agent without the information needed to complete the flow.

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%, so every parameter (data, type, chain, address, message) is already documented in the schema, including the enum values and defaults. The description adds nothing beyond this, 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 ('Start') and resource ('WalletChan signature request'), so an agent knows this initiates a signing flow. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling sign_siwe or explain whether it covers personal_sign vs typed data (that detail lives only in the schema).

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?

The only guidance is the approval-flow note ('The user approves in the WalletChan popup'). There is no statement of when to use this versus sign_siwe or send_transaction, no prerequisites, and no indication of what happens after the request starts.

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