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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns the EIP-712 order, the currency approval needed, and submission instructions; it also clarifies the agent's role (reads Seaport counter, signs, POSTs) and that settlement stays on Seaport. This gives an agent a strong picture of what happens and what does not happen on-chain.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core output, the second handles the name-market edge case, and the third describes the agent's execution path and settlement. It is front-loaded, scannable, and free of fluff.

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?

The description is quite complete for a no-output-schema tool: it covers the return artifacts, the special name-market behavior, and the submission flow. Minor gaps include not mentioning where marketId comes from or what durationDays defaults to, but these are not critical enough to prevent correct invocation.

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 real meaning beyond the schema: the name vs. tokenId distinction, the fact that any REGISTERED name is biddable, and the note that offerAmount is the human amount the seller nets. Given 71% schema coverage, the description compensates for some gaps, though marketId and durationDays are still left mostly unexplained.

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 clearly states a specific verb+resource: it prepares a BID/offer on a position and returns the Seaport order to sign. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like prepare_purchase, prepare_listing, and prepare_cancel by focusing on the offer/bid workflow, and it even notes that name markets take `name` instead of `tokenId`.

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 description gives clear context on when to use this tool: for bids/offers on positions, including any registered name market whether listed or not. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use X instead', but the bid vs. purchase/listing/cancel contrast with sibling names makes the intended usage reasonably clear.

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