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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the call is free, it returns an UNSIGNED transaction {to, data, value, chainId} on Base, nothing executes until the caller signs and broadcasts, and Liquid is non-custodial. This resolves the apparent tension between a 'send' tool and readOnlyHint=true.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the key constraint ('Free') and the non-custodial safety model. Every sentence earns its place with 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 three-parameter prepare tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: cost, custody model, return shape, and the fact that signing is required before any state change.

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 all three parameters (to, vault, shares) are documented with patterns, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no per-parameter detail such as address format or decimal handling beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: transfer tokenized stock basket shares to any wallet or agent. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like stocks_sell (disposal for value) and stocks_buy (acquisition), and the 'no vault needed' clause clarifies scope.

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?

Gives clear context: use it to move basket shares to any wallet or another agent, who may hold, sell, or forward them. It does not name an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition (e.g., versus stocks_sell for liquidating), so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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