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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the operation rechecks stored bytes, prepares but does not sign or broadcast, and signing is deferred to first-party wallet pages — a meaningful security boundary an agent would otherwise not know.

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 core action and followed by the two key constraints. No wasted words, though 'Recheck stored bytes' is cryptic enough to cost a little 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 five-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description omits all parameter semantics and gives no indication of what the prepared submission result looks like. The signing/broadcast boundary is covered, but the definition is not complete enough to invoke confidently.

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 0% across five required parameters, so the schema provides no semantic help. The description only indirectly gestures at bounty_contract ('existing-contract'), solver_wallet ('authenticated solver') and evidence ('stored bytes') without defining any of them, and says nothing about network or id. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb ('prepare') and resource ('an existing-contract submission') scoped to 'the authenticated solver', which distinguishes it from the confirm_artifact_submission sibling by implying this is the pre-confirmation step. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself against the many other prepare_* siblings (prepare_bounty_action, prepare_bounty_post), so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 phrase 'existing-contract submission' implies a precondition (a contract must already exist), and 'This does not sign or broadcast. Sign only on first-party wallet pages' clarifies the boundary of what this tool will and will not do. But there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance relative to the sibling prepare/confirm tools, leaving routing largely to inference.

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