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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so well. It reveals the tool returns an EIP-712 order to sign, flags that currency approval is needed, and clarifies that settlement stays on Seaport rather than being executed by this tool.

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 dense sentences front-load the purpose and then explain the signing/POST workflow and Seaport settlement. Every clause earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with seven parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough procedural context: what is returned, the approval requirement, and the next action. It does not enumerate exact response fields, but the schema covers most input semantics and the description covers the follow-up workflow.

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?

The description adds workflow-level context but no per-parameter detail. Schema coverage is 71%, and the required marketId field is not documented in either the schema or the description; however, the remaining parameters are meaningfully described in the schema itself.

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 the specific action 'Prepare a BID/offer on a position' and lists the concrete deliverables (Seaport order to sign, currency approval, submission steps). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like prepare_listing and prepare_cancel.

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 'BID/offer' framing and the workflow (read Seaport counter, sign, POST) give a clear use context: when an offer needs to be prepared for signing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the offer-side intent is unambiguous.

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